Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Trevor M. Jones was charged with theft by deception in November 2023. Almost a year after the charge was filed, Jones moved for absolute discharge, claiming that the State of Nebraska failed to bring him to trial within the time required by Nebraska’s statutory speedy trial provisions. The District Court for Lancaster County held a hearing and agreed that Jones’s statutory speedy trial rights had been violated, granting his motion for absolute discharge and dismissing the charge.Following this decision, the State sought to appeal the district court’s order. Instead of following the procedures set out for exception proceedings under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2315.01, which specifically governs State appeals in criminal cases, the State simply filed a notice of appeal under the general appellate statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912. The Nebraska Court of Appeals questioned whether it had jurisdiction, since the State had not complied with the specific procedural requirements for exception proceedings. After seeking input from the State and considering a motion for summary dismissal from Jones, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that the State’s failure to follow the statutory process deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction. The State’s motion for rehearing was denied.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the matter on further review. The Supreme Court held that, under established precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis, the State may only obtain appellate review of a district court’s order granting absolute discharge in a criminal case by strictly following the procedures outlined in § 29-2315.01. The State’s failure to do so meant the appellate courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the State’s appeal. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. Following affirmance of his convictions on direct appeal, he filed a timely motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and a Brady violation based on counsel’s failure to present exculpatory evidence and a witness. The defendant submitted three documents on the same day: his motion, a memorandum brief with an affirmation concerning the brief, and a separate affirmation, filed with a motion for appointment of counsel, that expressly verified the facts in his postconviction motion.The District Court for Hall County denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, citing two independent grounds: lack of verification and substantive defects in the motion. The court interpreted the affirmation attached to the memorandum brief as not verifying the motion for postconviction relief and did not address the effect of the separate affirmation attached to the motion for appointment of counsel. Alternatively, the court found that the defendant’s claim was insufficient on the merits, characterizing the allegations as mere conclusions of fact or law without supporting facts.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case for plain error because the defendant’s brief failed to properly assign errors as required by court rules. The Supreme Court held that a separate, properly executed verification, filed simultaneously with a postconviction motion and directed exclusively to that motion, satisfies the statutory verification requirement. However, the court found no plain error in the District Court’s denial of relief, concluding that the defendant’s motion did not allege sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief. View "State v. Anthony" on Justia Law

The case concerns the prosecution of a father charged with first and third degree sexual assault of his 5-year-old biological daughter. The child disclosed the alleged abuse to her older brother, who then informed their mother. The day after the disclosure, the father visited the mother’s home and, upon hearing the brother repeat the accusation, physically assaulted and threatened to kill the brother if he repeated the allegation. The mother delayed reporting the incident to law enforcement for about a month. During pretrial proceedings, the court excluded evidence of another accusation involving a different child but permitted testimony about the father's assault and threat against the brother.Following a jury trial in the District Court for Douglas County, the defendant was acquitted of first degree sexual assault but convicted of third degree sexual assault of a child and sentenced to imprisonment and post-release supervision. He appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, arguing that admission of evidence regarding the assault and threat was unduly prejudicial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, reasoning that omitting context about the accusation involving the other child created a misleading impression and unfairly prejudiced the defendant, warranting a new trial.On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant’s assault and threat toward the brother. The Court held that this evidence was probative of consciousness of guilt and explained the mother’s delay in reporting the crime. It further determined that any omission regarding the other child’s accusation did not rise to the level of plain error, especially since defense counsel had sought its exclusion. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded with directions to affirm the conviction and sentence. View "State v. Cartwright" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of two felonies in the District Court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, and was sentenced to concurrent one-year terms of imprisonment, followed by 18 months of post-release supervision. Afterward, the appellant was convicted in the District Court for Saline County and received a consecutive two-year prison sentence. The appellant completed both periods of incarceration and subsequently filed a motion in Lancaster County District Court to terminate his post-release supervision, arguing that his progress during incarceration and the imposition of separate sentences warranted terminating supervision.Upon receiving the motion, the Lancaster County District Court held a hearing in which the appellant presented evidence of his progress and support system. The court denied the motion, citing the statutory requirement for post-release supervision, and entered a formal order of denial. The appellant then filed a timely appeal from this order.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, first confirming appellate jurisdiction by finding that the denial of the motion to terminate post-release supervision constituted a final, appealable order. On the merits, the court interpreted relevant statutory language and held that post-release supervision is a mandatory period following incarceration and cannot be served while an individual is still imprisoned for another consecutive sentence, regardless of whether the sentences were imposed in different counties. The court further found that the appellant’s progress during incarceration did not provide a legal basis to terminate the statutorily required post-release supervision. Applying an abuse of discretion standard, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion and affirmed the lower court’s order. View "State v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The case concerns Armon K. Rejai’s conviction for second degree murder following a shooting outside his apartment in Lancaster County, Nebraska, on January 21, 2023. The victim, Julian Martinez, was his 18-year-old neighbor. The incident began with a dispute over dogs being off-leash, escalated to Rejai pepper spraying Martinez and his roommates, and culminated with Martinez pounding on Rejai’s door. Rejai claimed that Martinez lunged at him when he opened the door, prompting him to shoot Martinez in the chest. Martinez later died at the hospital as a result of the gunshot wound.Initially charged with first degree murder and other offenses, Rejai ultimately entered a no contest plea to second degree murder under a plea agreement, and the other charges were dismissed. The District Court for Lancaster County accepted the plea and ordered a presentence investigation report (PSR), which included psychological evaluations revealing that Rejai had autism spectrum disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The PSR also showed he had no prior convictions, despite a previous acquittal for terroristic threats. At sentencing, the court imposed the maximum penalty of life imprisonment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case after Rejai appealed, arguing that the sentence was excessive. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing mitigating factors, considering the PSR’s contents, or imposing the sentence. The Nebraska Supreme Court reaffirmed that appellate courts are not required to conduct comparative analyses of sentences from other cases and expressly disapproved a contrary statement in State v. Iromuanya. The holding was that Rejai’s life sentence was not excessive and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Rejai" on Justia Law

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after a jury trial relating to the disappearance of a fellow college student with whom he was last seen. The defense’s strategy at trial was to present alternative explanations for the missing person’s fate, including accidental hypothermia, and called a forensic pathologist as an expert witness. During cross-examination, the expert stated that if someone purposely placed another person in a dangerous situation where they could not return to safety, that would be considered a homicide. Trial counsel did not object or further clarify the testimony. The jury found the appellant guilty of second degree murder.Following conviction and sentencing, the appellant’s counsel filed a direct appeal, which challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief in the District Court for Gage County, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel based mainly on the handling of the expert’s testimony. After an evidentiary hearing—including depositions of trial counsel—the district court found that counsel’s decisions about the expert’s testimony were strategic and did not amount to deficient performance. The district court denied postconviction relief.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions independently. The court held that trial counsel’s response to the expert’s testimony was a strategic decision and not objectively unreasonable. The court also found that additional claims raised for the first time on appeal could not be considered. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying postconviction relief. View "State v. Keadle" on Justia Law

The case concerns a man who forcibly entered the home of his former partner, S.E., with whom he shared a child. On May 12, 2023, after their relationship had deteriorated and following multiple threats by him against S.E., he kicked in the door of the house where S.E. was staying. He struck S.E. and, when her brother Jordan attempted to intervene while armed, the defendant shot and killed Jordan. He then shot S.E. in both legs, including while she was holding their child, though the child was not physically harmed. The defendant was charged with eight felony offenses, including first degree murder (premeditated and felony murder), use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, domestic assault, burglary, and child abuse.The Washington County District Court allowed the State to introduce evidence of prior uncharged assaults by the defendant against S.E., finding this evidence inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes. The court denied the defendant’s request for a self-defense jury instruction, reasoning that he had unjustifiably placed himself in harm’s way by breaking into the residence. The court also permitted S.E. to remain in the courtroom during the trial as an essential witness. The defendant was convicted on all counts and sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, some to run concurrently.On direct appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence of prior assaults was properly admitted as it provided necessary context for the charged crimes. The Court found no error in the refusal to instruct on self-defense or in allowing S.E. to be present during trial, as the defendant failed to show prejudice. However, the Court held that it was error to sentence the defendant both for felony murder and for the predicate felony of burglary, and that sentences for use of a deadly weapon must be served consecutively, not concurrently. All sentences were vacated and the case was remanded for resentencing, but the convictions were affirmed. View "State v. Logan" on Justia Law

After police responded to a noise complaint, they found the defendant asleep in the driver’s seat of a running vehicle with two tires on a driveway and two tires touching a public street. Officers detected alcohol and obtained a breath sample showing a blood alcohol level of .127. The defendant admitted to drinking earlier. He was charged with driving under the influence, third offense, based on alleged prior DUI convictions.The County Court for Lancaster County initially accepted the defendant’s no contest plea, but the District Court for Lancaster County vacated the sentence, finding the plea was not properly elicited. On remand, a new plea hearing was held and several exhibits were reoffered, but the exhibits intended to show the defendant’s prior convictions were not offered or received. The County Court, mistakenly believing these exhibits were in evidence, enhanced the conviction and sentenced the defendant for a third-offense DUI. The District Court affirmed, finding the plea proper and the sentence within statutory limits.The Nebraska Court of Appeals also affirmed, holding that the defendant could not challenge the enhancement because he had not raised the issue previously and had, through defense counsel’s statements, invited any error regarding the admission of prior convictions. The appellate court treated the enhancement as falling under the invited error doctrine and declined to address whether the sentence was excessive absent proof of prior convictions.The Nebraska Supreme Court determined that plain error occurred because there was no evidence in the record establishing prior convictions to support a third-offense DUI enhancement. The Court held that the lower courts erred by enhancing and sentencing the defendant absent such proof and that the invited error doctrine did not apply. The Court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for a new enhancement and sentencing hearing. View "State v. Molina" on Justia Law

The case involves the criminal prosecution of a defendant who was convicted by a jury of second degree assault and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The incident took place in December 2023 at an apartment complex where the defendant, after an intoxicated and unwelcome visit to his cousin’s apartment, became involved in a confrontation with a neighbor. Testimony established that the neighbor attempted to use a baseball bat to keep the defendant away, resulting in a physical altercation. The neighbor suffered multiple injuries, and there was evidence of an escalating struggle, including the neighbor retrieving a shotgun and a fight over the weapon. Both parties claimed self-defense, and the defendant testified to a different version of the events, stating that he was attacked first and responded only to defend himself.After the jury returned guilty verdicts, the District Court for Scotts Bluff County sentenced the defendant to concurrent prison terms. The defendant, represented by new counsel on appeal, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and raised several claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel before the Nebraska Court of Appeals. The appellate brief listed alleged failures by trial counsel, such as not subpoenaing certain witnesses, failing to introduce beneficial evidence, not advising the defendant about attending a deposition, inadequately pursuing a plea deal, and poor trial preparation. However, the Court of Appeals found most claims of ineffective assistance were too vague or lacked necessary specificity in the assignments of error, except for the plea agreement issue, which could not be resolved on the record.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict, rejecting the self-defense claim as a matter for the jury. The court clarified that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel must be specifically stated in the assignments of error; general or vague claims are procedurally barred. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. View "State v. Rupp" on Justia Law

A defendant was convicted following a jury trial after a fatal altercation with his father during a family gathering in Lincoln, Nebraska. The dispute began as a verbal argument, escalated when the father punched the defendant, and culminated when the defendant stabbed his father with a steak knife. The father died from a single stab wound to the chest. It was undisputed that the father initiated the physical confrontation and that the defendant was holding the knife when the fatal injury occurred. The defendant asserted multiple defenses at trial: self-defense, accident, lack of intent to kill, and sudden quarrel. Witnesses provided conflicting accounts about the defendant's statements and actions during the incident.In the District Court for Lancaster County, the defendant sought to introduce evidence of his father's history of violence and abuse, arguing it was relevant to his claim of self-defense. The court limited the admissible evidence to acts occurring within 10 years of the incident, citing remoteness and concerns of unfair prejudice. The court also refused to instruct the jury on unintentional manslaughter, finding that the evidence did not warrant such an instruction. After deliberation, the jury found the defendant guilty of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and he was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment.Reviewing the case, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of older acts, as remoteness affects weight, not admissibility, and the court properly balanced probative value against prejudice. The refusal to instruct on unintentional manslaughter was affirmed because the evidence supported intentional killing. The court found sufficient evidence to sustain both convictions. Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were rejected where the record was sufficient to do so; other claims were not addressed due to inadequate specificity or insufficient record. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Kruger" on Justia Law