Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State appealed from a district court order sentencing William Parminter to twelve to eighteen months in prison for aggravated driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, and twelve to fourteen months in prison for DUI, fourth offense. The court ordered that Parminter serve the sentences concurrently. The State appealed, arguing that the sentences were excessively lenient. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the sentences on Parminter because the sentences failed to adequately protect the public from Parminter and thus were excessively lenient. Remanded with directions to resentence Parminter to consecutive terms of five to five years and to revoke Parminter's license according to the applicable statutes. View "State v. Parminter" on Justia Law

Brandon Reinhart was convicted of using a minor to distribute a controlled substance and conspiracy to use a minor to distribute a controlled substance, specifically marijuana. Reinhart was sentenced to three to five years' imprisonment on each conviction with the sentences to run concurrently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Reinhart's convictions on both counts; (2) the trial court erred in admitting hearsay testimony, but the admission of the hearsay statement was harmless error; and (3) trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to make certain hearsay objections because the challenged statements were either admissible or their admission was, at most, harmless error. View "State v. Reinhart" on Justia Law

After a jury trial Patrick Bauldwin was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Bauldwin appealed. The primary issue on appeal was whether the police violated Bauldwin's Miranda rights. The Supreme Court affirmed Bauldwin's conviction and sentence, holding (1) a Miranda violation occurred because Bauldwin clearly invoked his right to remain silent during his interrogation, and the police did not scrupulously honor that right; (2) based on the record, the trial court's admission of the statement was harmless because, when viewed relative to the properly admitted, overwhelming evidence of Bauldwin's guilt, there was no reasonable probability that the jury's verdict was attributable to he court's erroneous admission of Bauldwin's statement; and (3) Bauldwin's other assigned errors were without merit. View "State v. Baudlin" on Justia Law

Tyler Britt was convicted in the county court of first-offense driving under the influence with a concentration of more than .15 of one gram alcohol per 210 liters of breath. The district court affirmed the conviction. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding, inter alia, that the admission of a certificate containing a chemical analysis certification of the alcohol breath simulator solution used to test the machine that was used to test Britt's breath did not violate the confrontation clause. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err when it concluded that the certificate was not testimonial, and therefore not subject to confrontation analysis; and (2) the court did not abuse its discretion when it did not note plain error with regard to Britt's hearsay objections. View "State v. Britt" on Justia Law

The juvenile court signed written orders committing and transferring a juvenile to the Youth Rehabilitation and Treatment Center (YRTC). The orders were made in error and did not reflect the court's orally pronounced intention to pursue foster placement for the juvenile. In a subsequent written order, the court vacated and corrected the erroneous orders, but the juvenile had already been transferred to the YRTC. Despite the court's insistence that the juvenile be returned, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) refused to do so and appealed the juvenile court's order. While the appeal was pending, DHHS obtained an order from the court of appeals staying the juvenile court's corrected order. This left the juvenile in the YRTC, where she completed her program, was paroled, and was subsequently discharged from parole. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as moot, as there was no longer an actual case or controversy requiring judicial resolution. View "In re Shaleia M." on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Benjamin Sprunger was convicted of four counts of possessing child pornography. Sprunger appealed, challenging the search that uncovered the images and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court should have suppressed the fruits of the search, as (1) probable cause did not support the warrant to search Sprunger's computers for child pornography; and (2) the warrant was lacking probable cause to such a degree that the officers' reliance on the warrant was not objectively reasonable and thus did not bring it within the U.S. v. Leon good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. View "State v. Sprunger" on Justia Law

A jury found William Kinser guilty of felony flight to avoid arrest and found Kinser to be a habitual criminal. Kinser appealed, contending that the habitual criminal determination was erroneous because the flight to avoid arrest conviction was enhanced from a misdemeanor to a felony based upon Kinser's willful reckless operation of a motor vehicle and that any further enhancement under the habitual criminal statute would result in an improper double enhancement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Kinser was properly sentenced as a habitual criminal; and (2) the district court did not impose an erroneous sentence for Kinser's flight to avoid arrest conviction. View "State v. Kinser" on Justia Law

Dwight Trumble owned property in Sarpy County and paid two levies for the support of school districts in the Learning Community of Douglas and Sarpy Counties (Learning Community). Trumble subsequently brought suit under Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1735 against the school districts in the Learning Community, claiming the levies were unconstitutional. The district court determined it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a suit to recover unconstitutional taxes cannot be brought under section 77-1735; (2) Trumble filed suit outside the tax year in which the challenged taxes were levied or assessed, so the district court did not have jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-21,149; and (3) since the district court lacked jurisdiction, it properly dismissed the action. View "Trumble v. Sarpy County Board" on Justia Law

The Douglas County attorney filed a petition with the Mental Health Board alleging that S.J. was a dangerous sex offender within the meaning of Nebraska's Sex Offender Commitment Act (SOCA). The Board concluded that S.J. was a dangerous sex offender. The Board then held a hearing in which it concluded that inpatient treatment at Norfolk Regional Center was the least restrictive alternative presently available and ordered inpatient commitment. S.J. appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) clear and convincing evidence supported the district court's findings that S.J. was substantially unable to control his behavior; (2) clear and convincing evidence supported the court's finding that inpatient treatment was the least restrictive alternative; and (3) SOCA's provision regarding the composition of the Board was consistent with due process requirements. View "In re S.J." on Justia Law

Big John's Billiards filed this action against the State and others seeking a declaration that the Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act was special legislation, violated Nebraska's equal protection clause, and constituted a regulatory taking. The district court sustained in part and in part overruled Big John's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of special legislation but did not direct entry of a final judgment or dismiss Big John's other constitutional claims. The State appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the district court did not enter a final order, the Court did not have appellate jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Big John's Billards v. State" on Justia Law