Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves Riley Lenhart, who was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in the death of his 10-month-old daughter, M.L. On June 19, 2022, M.L. died from ligature strangulation while in Lenhart's care. Lenhart claimed he left M.L. briefly to shower, and upon returning, found her not breathing. Emergency personnel were unable to revive her. Lenhart was arrested and charged with intentional child abuse resulting in death.The District Court for Dawes County handled the trial. Before the trial, Lenhart successfully moved to exclude certain character evidence, including his status as a sex offender and the fact that a sexual assault examination was conducted on M.L. During the trial, a forensic pathologist mentioned the sexual assault examination, prompting Lenhart to object and move for a mistrial. The court struck the statement and instructed the jury to disregard it but denied the mistrial motion. Instead, the court ordered the State to stipulate that such examinations are routine and that no evidence of sexual assault was found. Lenhart objected to this stipulation.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motion, as the jury was instructed to disregard the improper statement, and it is presumed they followed this instruction. The court also found that any error in the stipulation was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence against Lenhart, including the cause of M.L.'s death, Lenhart's sole care of M.L. at the time, and his failure to call 911. The court affirmed Lenhart's conviction and sentence. View "State v. Lenhart" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with obstructing the administration of law in violation of a municipal ordinance. The incident occurred when law enforcement officers attempted to arrest the defendant's son, who had a felony warrant. The defendant, holding a large dog, approached the officers, yelled at them, and did not comply with their commands to step back. This behavior continued until the officers threatened to shoot the dog. The defendant also picked up his son's backpack despite orders to leave it, further interfering with the officers' duties.The County Court for Douglas County found the defendant guilty, concluding that his actions constituted willful and defiant refusals to comply with lawful commands, thereby obstructing the officers. The court relied on the language of the ordinance and referenced a similar case, State v. Ferrin, to support its findings. The defendant was fined $250 and ordered to pay court costs.On appeal, the District Court for Douglas County affirmed the conviction. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent, that the trial court improperly applied a different statute, and that his conviction violated due process and his First Amendment rights. The district court found that the evidence supported the conviction and that the trial court had not erred in its application of the law.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the defendant's actions interfered with the officers' duties and demonstrated intent to obstruct. The court also found no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding the application of a different statute and constitutional violations, noting that these issues were not properly raised in the lower courts. View "State v. Yah" on Justia Law

Deontae Rush appealed from convictions of first-degree murder and using a firearm to commit a felony. He had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and 25-35 years for the firearm offense, to be served consecutively. Rush challenged various evidentiary rulings made by the district court. He also argued that the lower court should have granted his motion for a mistrial due to statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Rush further alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on numerous grounds. He also argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that he used a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decisions. It found no merit in most of the assignments of error, while it concluded that it could not resolve certain claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. The court noted that any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the weapons offense based on the evidence presented. It also noted that a trial court has significant discretion over matters such as evidentiary determinations and whether to grant a motion for a mistrial. Since it found no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court did not disturb these decisions by the district court. View "State v. Rush" on Justia Law

A self-described "lay midwife" was charged by the State of Nebraska with practicing a profession without a credential after being ordered to cease and desist. The midwife, who did not hold a state-issued credential, provided prenatal and postnatal care and assisted with childbirth. The charges were based on her alleged violation of the Uniform Credentialing Act (UCA).In Madison County, the district court sustained the midwife's plea in abatement, finding that "nurse midwives" were not required to hold credentials under the UCA. The court also suggested that the UCA would be unconstitutionally vague if it required a credential for practicing "nurse midwifery." Similarly, in Douglas County, the district court sustained a plea in abatement on the same grounds, dismissing the charges against the midwife.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district courts had misconstrued the UCA. The court held that the UCA requires individuals to hold a credential to engage in practices such as attending childbirth and providing related care, which fall under the scope of medicine and surgery, advanced practice registered nursing, and certified nurse midwifery. The court also found that the evidence presented was sufficient to show probable cause that the midwife had committed the charged crime.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district courts' orders sustaining the pleas in abatement and dismissing the charges. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of the midwife's motions to quash and demurrers. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves Kolton Barnes, who was convicted of first-degree murder, intentional cruelty to an animal, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, two counts of negligent child abuse, and evidence tampering. The charges stemmed from the death of his fiancée, Kayla Matulka, and his dog, both found in their home. Barnes claimed self-defense, stating Matulka attacked him after killing the dog. The prosecution argued Barnes killed Matulka after she broke up with him.In the District Court for Saunders County, Nebraska, Barnes sought access to Matulka’s mental health records to support his defense. The court granted partial access but denied a motion to compel further records from an out-of-state insurer, citing jurisdictional issues and the sufficiency of already provided records. Barnes also moved to exclude evidence of prior threats he made to a former girlfriend, which the court allowed, finding it relevant to motive and intent. At trial, the jury found Barnes guilty on all counts except for the two counts of intentional child abuse, where he was found guilty of the lesser charge of negligent child abuse.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel further records, as Barnes had ample evidence of Matulka’s mental health issues. The court also upheld the admission of prior threat evidence, finding it relevant to Barnes' motive and intent. The court found no error in the exclusion of a document about demonic possession or in the admission of a timeline of cell phone activities. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and due process violations were dismissed, as the court found no plain error. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the murder conviction, and the sentences for use of a deadly weapon were not excessive. The court affirmed Barnes' convictions and sentences. View "State v. Barnes" on Justia Law

Gregory Moore was convicted of second-degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony after a jury trial. The incident occurred in November 2020, when Moore was living in an apartment building in Scottsbluff, Nebraska. Early one morning, a tenant heard noises and a man yelling for help from Moore’s apartment. Later, the building manager and police found Moore with blood on him and the body of Fernando Camacho-McBride inside the apartment. Moore claimed someone had entered illegally and was looking at his "inventory." Camacho-McBride had multiple stab wounds, including a fatal one to his arm. Moore was charged with second-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon.The Scotts Bluff County District Court admitted evidence of a prior assault by Moore in March 2020, where he attacked his landlord with a knife, claiming he was protecting his "inventory." Moore objected, arguing this evidence was prejudicial and only showed his propensity for violence. The court allowed the evidence, finding it relevant to Moore’s motive, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake or accident. The jury was instructed to consider the evidence only for these limited purposes.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the lower court’s decision. The court found that the evidence of the prior assault was relevant for purposes other than showing Moore’s propensity for violence. It was pertinent to proving Moore’s motive, intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake or accident. The court also determined that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, especially given the limiting instruction provided to the jury. Consequently, Moore’s convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The case involves the prosecution of Kay E. Anderson for multiple misdemeanor violations of a city property maintenance code at a residential apartment complex in Omaha, Nebraska, known as Yale Park. Anderson was responsible for managing and maintaining the complex, which consisted of 13 buildings with approximately 100 residential units. In September 2018, city inspectors, acting on numerous tenant complaints about unsafe living conditions, obtained an inspection warrant and discovered approximately 2,500 code violations. Anderson was subsequently charged with 99 counts of violating the Omaha Municipal Code (OMC).In the county court, Anderson filed motions to suppress the evidence obtained from the inspection, arguing that the warrant was invalid because inspectors had not complied with the statutory requirement to seek consent before obtaining the warrant. The county court initially granted the motion, but the district court reversed, finding Anderson lacked standing to challenge the warrant for units leased to others. Anderson's renewed motion to suppress was denied, and he was convicted on four counts after a bench trial.On appeal, Anderson argued that the evidence should have been suppressed due to the invalid warrant and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the failure to seek consent before obtaining the inspection warrant did not render the warrant constitutionally invalid. The court held that the omitted information about not seeking consent was not material to the probable cause finding. Additionally, the court found that the violation of the statutory requirement did not affect Anderson's substantial rights and did not require suppression of the evidence.The court also found sufficient evidence to support Anderson's convictions. The violation notices were properly served, Anderson was responsible for maintenance, and he knowingly failed to comply with the correction orders for at least 90 days. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Anderson's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The case involves Jmaun D. Haynie, who was convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree assault, and two counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony. The incident occurred on September 12, 2021, when Haynie and another individual, Izayah Mapp, met Franco Vasquez and Haley Grim in a parking lot in Omaha, Nebraska, under the pretense of purchasing marijuana. During the encounter, both Haynie and Mapp pulled out guns, leading to the shooting of Vasquez and Grim. Vasquez died at the scene, while Grim survived. Evidence included text messages between Vasquez and Haynie, DNA linking Haynie to the vehicle, and social media messages from Haynie indicating his involvement.The District Court for Douglas County, Nebraska, presided over the trial. During the trial, there were two incidents involving the victim's family: an outburst by Vasquez's mother and a spectator wearing a T-shirt memorializing Vasquez. Haynie's counsel moved for a mistrial, arguing these incidents could prejudice the jury. The court denied the motion but took steps to prevent further incidents. The jury was instructed not to let sympathy or prejudice influence their verdict. Haynie was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder charge, along with additional consecutive sentences for the other charges.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial, as there was no evidence the jury was influenced by the incidents. The court also found no error in the jury instructions given, which followed the Nebraska Jury Instructions. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support Haynie's felony murder conviction, as the intent to rob Vasquez could be inferred from the circumstances. The court affirmed Haynie's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Haynie" on Justia Law

The case involves William Zitterkopf, who was charged with unlawful distribution of an intimate image under Nebraska law. The charges stemmed from allegations that Zitterkopf recorded a sexual encounter with the victim, L.E., without her consent and later distributed a screenshot from the video to his ex-wife and L.E. The image showed L.E. nude from the waist down. Zitterkopf sent the image to L.E. with a message suggesting she confess to lying in an affidavit related to his divorce proceedings.The Scotts Bluff County District Court overruled Zitterkopf’s motion to quash the charge, in which he argued that the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutional. The court found that the statute was not overbroad and did not violate free speech protections because it targeted the nonconsensual nature of the disclosure rather than the content of the image. The court applied an intermediate level of scrutiny and concluded that the statute served an important governmental interest without burdening more speech than necessary.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and assumed for the sake of argument that the statute was content-based and subject to strict scrutiny. The court found that the statute served a compelling interest in protecting individual privacy and was narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The statute required a lack of consent both when the image was created and when it was distributed, and it required that the distribution be done knowingly and intentionally. The court concluded that the statute was not substantially overbroad and did not violate the First Amendment.The court also addressed Zitterkopf’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. It found that the record on direct appeal was sufficient to determine that Zitterkopf could not show prejudice from his counsel’s failure to object to certain testimony. However, the court found the record insufficient to review Zitterkopf’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for failing to present certain testimony. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Zitterkopf’s conviction. View "State v. Zitterkopf" on Justia Law

James M. Briggs, Jr. was charged with two counts of second-degree assault for attacking two employees at the Lincoln Correctional Center (LCC) on April 21, 2021. The charges were based on allegations that Briggs punched one employee, Parwiz Masoodi, multiple times and kicked another employee, Desaray Kerns, in the face while they were trying to restrain him. Both employees sustained bruising and received emergency medical care.The District Court for Lancaster County held a jury trial in May 2023, where both victims testified, and security footage of the incident was presented. Briggs moved to dismiss the charges at the close of the State’s evidence, arguing insufficient evidence, but the court denied the motion. The jury found Briggs guilty on both counts. At sentencing, the court found Briggs to be a habitual criminal and sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 10 to 12 years’ imprisonment, with a 10-year mandatory minimum for each count.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. Briggs argued that the jury instructions were incorrect because they did not include "unlawful" as an element of the offense and that his trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to this omission. The court found that the instructions, when read as a whole, correctly stated the law and encompassed all material elements of the charged crime. Therefore, Briggs' counsel was not deficient.Briggs also contended that his counsel was ineffective for not informing the court of amendments to the habitual criminal statute that reduced the mandatory minimum sentence. The court noted that the amendments were not in effect at the time of sentencing, so counsel was not deficient. However, applying the rule from State v. Randolph, the court vacated Briggs' sentences and remanded for resentencing under the amended statute, which mitigated the punishment. The convictions were affirmed, but the sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Briggs" on Justia Law