Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and for possession of a controlled substance without a tax stamp, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in overruling his motion in limine and admitting evidence including the controlled substance that had been in the possession and under the control of a state patrol evidence technician who was later indicted for theft of controlled substances under her control. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to establish foundation for admission of the challenged evidence; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Osborne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for a new trial following her conviction of possession of a controlled substance, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by disregarding the parties' stipulation that there were sufficient grounds to sustain the motion for a new trial.Defendant appealed after she was convicted but then voluntarily dismissed her appeal upon being informed that an evidence technician who may have been responsible for drug-related evidence in her case had been criminally indicted. Together with the State, Defendant filed a joint motion and stipulation for new trial but did not support the motion with any evidence. The district court overruled the motion for not complying with the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2102. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) due process was not implicated by the district court's decision to disregard the conclusory stipulation that a new trial should be granted for Defendant; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion finding that the facts did not support a new trial. View "State v. Blocher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant for use of an electronic communication device to commit sexual assault and enticement, holding that the district court did not err in its instructions to the jury or in imposing sentences.Defendant was convicted and sentenced to fifteen to twenty years for use of an electronic communication device to commit sexual assault and twenty-three to twenty-four months' imprisonment for enticement by an electronic communication device. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, contrary to Defendant's arguments on appeal the district court did not err in either refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment or in imposing excessive sentences. View "State v. Hines" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of intentional child abuse resulting in death and making terroristic threats, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other claims of error, that the district court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter and that this error constituted structural error depriving him of due process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to change venue; and (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by the district court's refusal to give a requested instruction on involuntary manslaughter, and therefore, reversal was not required. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for absolute discharge upon determining that a forty-two-day continuance granted at the State's request was excluded from the speedy trial calculation, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court was bound by a prior oral ruling that the speedy trial clock would run during the State's continuance unless it specifically addressed the prior order before it could determine whether the State's continuance was excluded from the speedy trial calculation under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the period of the State's continuance was excluded and in denying Defendant's motion for discharge. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of attempted incest and intentional child abuse resulting in death, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Z.M. attempted suicide by taking her mother's prescription steroid pills. At the emergency room she reported that "her father [Defendant] sexually abused her and she was trying to commit suicide." Two years later, Z.M. expressed a desire to reunify with Defendant, after which Defendant sexually propositioned her. Later that year, Z.M. committed suicide. Defendant pled guilty to attempted incest, and a jury convicted him of intentional child abuse resulting in death. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the child abuse resulting in death statute is not void for vagueness; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions; (3) the district court did not commit reversible evidentiary errors; (4) there was no error in the jury instructions; and (5) Defendant's remaining allegations of error were unavailing. View "State v. Matteson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that Defendant's counsel provided effective assistance.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the State presented circumstantial evidence to prove that Defendant killed the victim purposely and with deliberate and premeditated malice and met its burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Defendant failed sufficiently to allege ineffective assistance of trial counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). View "State v. Miranda" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this complaint brought by Plaintiff, an inmate in the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services system, against the Department and several of its officials (collectively, DCS) under 42 U.S. 1983 and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding Plaintiff's tentative release date, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff sued DCS under section 1983 and the APA, alleging that DCS violated both his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to have his "sentence determined consistent with the statutes and case law of Nebraska." DCS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the entire was barred by claim preclusion. The district court agreed with DCS and dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing Plaintiff's action with prejudice; and (2) did not err in not granting Plaintiff leave to amend. View "Schaeffer v. Frakes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed, as modified the post-release supervision order of the district court adding to the conditions of Appellant's post-release supervision before his release from the Department of Correctional Services, holding that modification was warranted.On appeal, Appellant argued that, under Neb. Ct. R. 6-1904(B), the State was required to prove new circumstances to warrant modification of the terms of the post-release supervision order. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's post-release supervision order only to the extent that Appellant have no contact with the victims during the term of his post-release supervision, holding that the State cannot seek changes to the conditions of post-release supervision in the absence of new circumstances. View "State v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion to dismiss the criminal case against him for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the intrastate detainer statutes, holding that the district court did not err.The State charged Defendant with two felonies. Defendant later filed a motion to dismiss due to the State's failure to bring him to trial within the statutory 180-day time limit. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the interstate detainer statutes, including the speedy trial provision of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3805, cease to apply to a criminal defendant when he is discharged from the custody of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS); and (2) Nebraska's intrastate detainer statutes no longer applied to Defendant after he was discharged from DCS custody. View "State v. Yzeta" on Justia Law