Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Trevelle Taylor was convicted of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. On appeal, Taylor contended that the district court erred in giving certain jury instructions, receiving expert opinion testimony regarding the presence of gunshot residue on Taylor's hands, and admitting cellular telephone records purporting to prove contacts between Taylor and his codefendant on the basis of insufficient foundation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court committed reversible error in giving a jury instruction that allowed the jury to presume that Taylor was guilty of the crimes charged but failing to specify that the jury that was not required to draw the inference of guilt in violation of Neb. R. Evid. 303(3); (2) Taylor was not unfairly prejudiced by the other jury instructions given; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony of gunshot residue; and (4) there was sufficient authentication to support the admission of the cellular telephone records. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

This case involved a constitutional challenge to an occupation tax levied pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 2-3226.05. Appellant landowners, who were residents and taxpayers of natural resources districts in the Republican River basin, brought an action for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to have the occupation tax declared unconstitutional and its levy and collection enjoined. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the occupation tax, determining that it did not violate the Nebraska Constitution as (1) the occupation tax was not a property tax but, rather, an excise tax levied upon the activity of irrigation; (2) the occupation tax did not result in a commutation of taxes; and (3) section 2-3226.05 was not special legislation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the judgment in Garey v. Nebraska Department of Natural Resources did not bar this action under the doctrine of res judicata; and (2) the landowners did not meet their burden of establishing that the occupation tax was unconstitutional. View "Kiplinger v. Neb. Dep't of Natural Res." on Justia Law

A jury found Armon Dixon guilty of one count of first-degree sexual assault and one count of robbery. The trial court determined that Dixon was a habitual offender as to both counts and sentenced Dixon to consecutive terms of thirty-five to sixty years in prison. On appeal, Dixon asserted that the district court erred in, inter alia, failing to sustain his motions for a change of venue, a mistrial, a continuance when he could not produce a witness, and for a directed verdict, and in imposing excessive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that none of Dixon's assignments of error had merit. View "State v. Dixon" on Justia Law

Larry Williams was convicted and sentenced in district court for five counts of first degree sexual assault and one count of sexual assault of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed Williams' convictions, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Williams' motion for new trial on the bases that (a) the informations were signed by persons were signed by persons not properly identified as the prosecuting authority, (b) prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and (c) the court erroneously admitted certain evidence; and (2) the district court did not impose excessive sentences, but the court committed plain error when it granted Williams forty-five days of credit for time against each of the five counts. The Court modified the sentencing order to state that Williams was entitled to a credit for time served in the amount of forty-five days against the aggregate of the minimum and the aggregate of the maximum sentences of imprisonment. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

Defendant Karnell Burton was convicted of manslaughter, attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Burton's convictions and sentences, holding (1) Burton waived any violation of his right to a speedy trial by not moving for discharge before trial; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Burton's motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct during the state's rebuttal in final argument; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that evidence of gang membership of two of the State's witnesses was not relevant; and (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing lengthy terms of imprisonment because of the nature of Burton's offenses. View "State v. Burton" on Justia Law

Raad Almasaudi was charged with theft by receiving stolen property pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-517 after various items of stolen property were found in his residence. A jury convicted Almasaudi of the charge. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) Almasaudi was prejudiced by an instruction directing the jury to apply an objective rather than a subjective standard to the knowledge requirement of section 28-517 because such an instruction was contrary to law and failed to conform to the criminal code, and (2) the totality of the evidence was sufficient to sustain Almasaudi's conviction. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Almasaudi" on Justia Law

Frederick Skaggs was convicted in California of attempted forcible rape, kidnapping, robbery, and the unlawful taking of a vehicle. After he was paroled, Skaggs eventually moved to Nebraska. The Nebraska State Patrol required Skaggs to register under the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). After Skaggs requested a determination of the applicability of SORA to him, a hearing was held, and a hearing officer determined that Skaggs was required to register. The State Patrol adopted the recommendation of the hearing officer in full. The district court agreed that Skaggs was required to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State Patrola and district court did not err in determining SORA applied to Skaggs, and (2) the district court did not err when it refused to address the issue of whether SORA, as applied to Skaggs, was unconstitutional because it was not properly preserved for judicial review. View "Skaggs v. Neb. State Patrol" on Justia Law

Herchel Huff was driving a motor vehicle when he struck and killed a pedestrian. Huff was convicted of several charges in connection with the accident, including manslaughter and motor vehicle homicide. The primary issue on appeal was whether Huff's convictions for manslaughter and motor vehicle homicide violated the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions because, as Huff argued, manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of motor vehicle homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and in part vacated, holding that, under Blockburger v. United States, unlawful act manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of motor vehicle homicide, and therefore, Huff was subjected to multiple punishments in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court then vacated Huff's conviction and sentence for manslaughter and remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Huff" on Justia Law

Susan Schwerdtfeger became pregnant by in vitro fertilization, and after giving birth, she and Teri Latham lived with the child for five years. The parties then separated and Latham moved out of the home. After Latham's visitation with the child stopped, Latham brought an action seeking custody and visitation, alleging that she had standing based on the doctrine of in loco parentis. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Schwerdtfeger and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred when it concluded that the doctrine of in loco parentis did not apply to the facts of this case, and therefore, Latham had standing to seek custody and visitation of the child; and (2) there were genuine issues of material fact whether Latham should be granted custody and/or visitation of the child. View "Latham v. Schwerdtfeger" on Justia Law

An irrigation district (FCID) petitioned the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to reevaluate a portion of the Republican River Basin according to the criteria in Neb. Rev. Stat. 46-713 and to determine whether the basin met the criteria to be considered "overappropriated" rather than "fully appropriated." If the status of the basin was changed to "overappropriated," the DNR could assert more authority over the basin. The DNR denied FCID's petition, finding the statute allowed the DNR to declare a river basin overappropriated only if it was subject to an interstate cooperative agreement. Because the basin was subject to an interstate compact, the DNR declared it did not have the authority to change the status as an interstate compact was not the equivalent of an interstate cooperative agreement. The FCID appealed. The DNR cross-appealed, alleging that FCID failed to demonstrate an injury in fact for standing purposes. The Supreme Court found the FCID failed to plead an injury in fact and therefore did not have standing. The Court dismissed the cause for lack of jurisdiction and did not reach the merits of the litigation. View "Frenchman-Cambridge Irr. Dist. v. Dep't of Nat. Res." on Justia Law