Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brant A. Geller pled no contest to three counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of attempted possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The district court orally pronounced his sentences and issued a written sentencing order. A few hours later, the district court issued an amended sentencing order. Geller appealed, challenging his sentences, arguing that the amended sentencing order was contrary to the oral pronouncement and that his sentences were excessive.The district court initially sentenced Geller to 6 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ post-release supervision for each possession charge, and 18 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ post-release supervision for the weapon charge. The court stated that the sentences for the possession charges would run concurrently, but the weapon charge would run consecutively. The written sentencing order reflected this, but the amended order clarified that the post-release supervision for the weapon charge would also run consecutively.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that when an orally pronounced sentence is ambiguous, a subsequent written sentencing order can clarify the ambiguity. The court found that the district court’s oral pronouncement was contradictory regarding whether the post-release supervision terms were to run concurrently or consecutively. The amended sentencing order clarified this ambiguity, stating that the post-release supervision for the weapon charge would run consecutively to the other charges.The court also reviewed Geller’s argument that his sentences were excessive. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Geller, as the sentences were within statutory limits and the court considered the appropriate factors. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "State v. Geller" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The incident involved the shooting death of Barbara Williams in front of an apartment complex in Omaha, Nebraska. The shooter, identified by some witnesses as the defendant, arrived in a white sedan, fired multiple shots, and fled the scene. The defendant's primary defense was an alibi, claiming he was at a barbecue at the time of the shooting. Several witnesses and photographs supported this alibi, but the State argued he could have committed the crime and arrived at the barbecue shortly after.The trial court admitted cell phone data showing the defendant searched for news about the shooting shortly after it occurred. The defendant's motion to suppress this evidence was denied. On direct appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding the search warrant for the cell phone data was supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular.The defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on several grounds, including failure to object to the printouts of cell phone data, failure to adequately cross-examine witnesses, failure to challenge the investigation of an alternative suspect with dreadlocks, and failure to call a key alibi witness. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that the defendant did not suffer prejudice from these alleged deficiencies.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the defendant's allegations, even if true, did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. The court noted that defense counsel had effectively cross-examined witnesses, challenged the State's evidence, and presented a cohesive alibi defense. The court also held that the failure to call the alibi witness, Richard, did not constitute ineffective assistance, as his testimony would not have significantly altered the evidentiary picture presented to the jury. View "State v. Goynes" on Justia Law

Chad R. Clausen was charged with violating Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) after an investigation revealed he had been intermittently staying at his fiancé’s house without notifying authorities. Clausen was registered under SORA at an address in Douglas County, Nebraska, but law enforcement received an anonymous tip that he was residing at a Washington County address. Evidence showed that Clausen had been staying at his fiancé’s residence in Washington County for several months. Clausen admitted to staying there for three days and then returning to his registered address for three days. The district court found Clausen guilty of violating SORA, determining that he had established a habitual living location and temporary domicile at his fiancé’s house without registering.Clausen appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, arguing that the State failed to prove he established a habitual living location or temporary domicile and that the definitions of these terms were unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, interpreting the definitions in line with a federal district court decision in Doe v. Nebraska, which required a person to stay at a location for three consecutive weekdays to establish a temporary domicile. The Court of Appeals found that Clausen’s admission of staying at the Washington County residence “most nights” allowed a rational trier of fact to conclude he stayed there for three consecutive weekdays.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation. The Supreme Court held that “working days” in the context of SORA refers to Mondays through Fridays, excluding legal holidays. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove Clausen stayed at the Washington County residence for three consecutive weekdays or more than three consecutive days. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed Clausen’s conviction and vacated his sentence, concluding that the State failed to prove he violated SORA’s registration requirements. View "State v. Clausen" on Justia Law

Karsen H. Rezac was involved in a vehicular collision on December 23, 2022, in Lincoln, Nebraska, which resulted in the shooting death of Kupo Mleya. Rezac, who was identified as a suspect based on vehicle debris and witness reports, admitted to firing shots at Mleya's vehicle after the collision. Rezac was charged with second-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. He later pled no contest to second-degree murder as part of a plea agreement, and the firearm charge was dropped.The district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, denied Rezac's motion to continue his sentencing hearing, which he requested to allow more time to gather and review his mental health records. The court proceeded with the sentencing, considering the presentence investigation report and supplemental items. Rezac was sentenced to 60 years to life imprisonment. Rezac appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and imposing an excessive sentence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Rezac forfeited his argument regarding the denial of the continuance by failing to raise the issue at the sentencing hearing. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the sentencing, as the district court had considered the relevant mitigating factors. The court rejected Rezac's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to the failure to move to suppress his statement to law enforcement and the failure to explain the penalties for second-degree murder, finding that the record refuted these claims.However, the court found the record insufficient to address Rezac's claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him that self-defense was not a viable argument, failing to explain the difference between second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, and failing to provide his mental health records to probation or the court. The court affirmed Rezac's conviction and sentence but noted that these claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be resolved on direct appeal due to the insufficient record. View "State v. Rezac" on Justia Law

The appellant, Dilang N. Dat, was convicted of assault by a confined person following an altercation with another inmate, Tilian Tilian, in the Hall County jail. Dat punched Tilian multiple times, causing him to fall to the ground. The incident was captured on surveillance video, and a corrections officer testified about the altercation and its aftermath. Dat was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with 228 days' credit for time served, followed by nine months of post-release supervision.The district court overruled Dat's motion for self-representation, finding his waiver of counsel was not voluntary as he stated it was made "in duress." The court also quashed a subpoena for a witness, Darla Sparr, because it was served less than two days before she was ordered to appear, and Dat failed to show good cause to shorten the statutory period for service. Dat's counsel argued that Sparr's testimony was necessary to challenge the evidence of bodily injury, but the court found no valid reason for the late subpoena.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that physical manifestation of an injury is not required to meet the definition of bodily injury under Nebraska law. The evidence, including the video and testimony, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that Dat caused bodily injury to Tilian. The court also found no abuse of discretion in quashing the subpoena for untimely service and concluded that Dat's trial counsel was not ineffective, as there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the subpoena been timely served. The court did not find plain error in the sentencing credit calculation due to the lack of a clear record on the issue. View "State v. Dat" on Justia Law

The case involves Benjamin D. Rieker, a Lincoln Police Department officer, who was working off-duty as a security guard at a hospital. On October 31, 2020, Jan Noch, a patient, became disruptive and was asked to leave the hospital. Rieker encountered Noch in a hallway and instructed him to leave through the ambulance bay exit, but Noch insisted on leaving through the main lobby. Rieker claimed Noch threatened him and made aggressive movements, prompting Rieker to push Noch, causing him to fall. Security footage and eyewitnesses provided conflicting accounts of the incident.The county court for Lancaster County convicted Rieker of third-degree assault and false reporting after a bench trial. Rieker was sentenced to 18 months’ probation for each conviction, to be served concurrently. Rieker appealed to the district court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that his motion to suppress certain statements should have been granted. The district court affirmed the convictions and sentences.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court found that the evidence, including security footage and eyewitness testimony, supported the conclusion that Rieker’s use of force was not justified under the defense of property statute. The court also found that Rieker knowingly provided false information in his reports and during an interview with law enforcement, intending to impede the investigation of an actual criminal matter.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Rieker’s convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support both the assault and false reporting convictions. The court did not find it necessary to address the suppression issue, as any potential error in admitting the ACI form was deemed harmless given the other competent evidence supporting the convictions. View "State v. Rieker" on Justia Law

Anthony J. Garcia was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder, among other charges, for crimes committed in Omaha, Nebraska, in 2008 and 2013. In October 2016, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to death in 2018. Garcia's convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. While his direct appeal was pending, Garcia filed a motion for a new trial, claiming newly discovered evidence suggested he was not competent during earlier proceedings.The District Court for Douglas County denied Garcia's motion for a new trial. The court found that the evidence Garcia presented, which included his positive response to involuntary medication in 2019 and a diagnosis of hearing loss in 2020, did not qualify as newly discovered evidence because it did not exist at the time of his trial or mitigation hearing. Additionally, the court found the motion was untimely, as it was filed three years after Garcia's counsel obtained the relevant records, without any explanation for the delay.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Garcia's motion and supporting documents failed to identify evidence so substantial that it would probably result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted. The court also found that Garcia's claims regarding his competency and ability to contribute to his defense did not warrant a new trial, as the evidence did not suggest he was incompetent during the original proceedings. Furthermore, the court concluded that Garcia could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel, as he could not show that any deficient performance by his counsel prejudiced his defense. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The case involves Ryan D. Rivera-Meister, who was charged with attempted intentional child abuse resulting in death after the 16-month-old child of his girlfriend was fatally injured while in his care. Rivera-Meister initially claimed the child fell from a bunk bed, but medical evidence suggested the injuries were inconsistent with such a fall. He was charged in 2017, fled to Guatemala, and was extradited back to Nebraska in 2022. He pleaded no contest to the amended charge and was sentenced to 40 to 50 years in prison.The Hall County District Court sentenced Rivera-Meister and credited him with 706 days for time served in Nebraska but denied his request for an additional 266 days for time spent in custody in Guatemala awaiting extradition. The court reasoned that his decision to flee and not return voluntarily justified denying the additional credit.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with Rivera-Meister and the State that he was entitled to the additional 266 days of credit for time served in Guatemala. The court held that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,106(1), an offender is entitled to credit for time spent in custody as a result of the charge for which the prison sentence is imposed, regardless of whether that custody was in another state or country. The court modified the sentence to include the additional 266 days, totaling 972 days of credit for time served. The court found no abuse of discretion in the length of the sentence imposed and affirmed the sentence as modified. View "State v. Rivera-Meister" on Justia Law

Kevin T. Kilmer was charged with first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony after allegedly killing Ruth Ann Wittmuss with an ax. Kilmer had been staying with Wittmuss and Michael Malone in a trailer house in Kilgore, Nebraska. On the night of the murder, Kilmer arrived at a friend's house covered in blood and admitted to hitting Wittmuss with an ax. Law enforcement found Wittmuss' body in a suitcase on the side of a road, and an autopsy confirmed she died from blunt force trauma to the head. Evidence collected from the crime scene, including blood and DNA, linked Kilmer to the murder.The Cherry County District Court jury found Kilmer guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and an additional 10 to 14 years for the use of a deadly weapon, with the sentences to be served consecutively. Kilmer appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he acted with deliberate and premeditated malice.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that intent and premeditation can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's actions and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court found that the evidence, including Kilmer's motive, the nature of Wittmuss' injuries, and Kilmer's actions before and after the murder, supported the jury's finding of deliberate and premeditated malice.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Kilmer's convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. View "State v. Kilmer" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with four counts of first-degree sexual assault, alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2004, and June 1, 2008. He filed a motion to quash and dismiss the charges, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. The district court denied the motion, stating that the statute of limitations likely had not run but required a preliminary hearing to determine the ages of the victims. Before the preliminary hearing, the State amended the charges to include offenses from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2008. The appellant eventually pled no contest to one count of first-degree sexual assault under a plea agreement.The district court accepted the plea after confirming that the appellant understood the charges, the penalties, and his rights. The court also confirmed that the appellant was competent to plead, despite his PTSD and not taking medication on the day of the plea hearing. The appellant was sentenced to 40 to 50 years in prison, with credit for time served. His trial counsel did not appeal, leading the appellant to file a pro se motion for postconviction relief, which was granted, allowing him to file a direct appeal.On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for various reasons, including failing to file a motion to quash the amended information, not disclosing a health condition that impaired counsel’s ability, and not properly advising him of the consequences of his plea. The court found that the record did not support claims of ineffective assistance regarding the motion to quash, as the statute of limitations had not expired, and there was no ex post facto violation. The court also found that the appellant was adequately informed of the consequences of his plea and that his counsel was not deficient in this regard.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s acceptance of the plea and the sentence, finding no abuse of discretion or merit in the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Haas" on Justia Law