Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for two counts of child enticement and one count of tampering with a witness but vacated Defendant's sentence for witness tampering, holding that Defendant's sentence for witness tampering was error and that Defendant's remaining assignments of error were without merit.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no plain error in the opening, closing, and rebuttal statements by the prosecutor; (2) the district court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the absence of permission as an element of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311(2)(a); (3) Defendant's sentence for witness tampering was error, and the sentence should be vacated and the cause remanded for resentencing under a post-Neb. Laws, L.B. 605 law; and (4) there was no merit to Defendant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to dismiss on grounds that Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-311(1)(b) was unconstitutional as applied to Defendant. View "State v. Kipple" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that because Appellant did not file his motion for postconviction relief within the relevant limitation period and could have done so, the district court did not err in denying relief.Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and other crimes. More than three years after Appellant's direct appeal concluded Appellant moved for postconviction relief. The district court denied the motion as untimely filed. Appellant appealed, arguing that the relevant one-year limitation period contained in Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3001(4) for filing a postconviction motion should be either be tolled during the pendency of his motion for new trial or should be equitably tolled. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 29-3001(4) did not provide for tolling under the circumstances; and (2) even if the doctrine of equitable tolling could apply in a postconviction proceeding, the circumstances of this case did not support its application. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of attempted false information on a gun permit application, holding that neither of the two questions of law raised by Defendant had merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction because the alleged false information was not about her name, address, date of birth, or country of citizenship and because she was confused about "informations" versus "complaints." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime of attempted false information on a gun permit application. View "State v. Hofmann" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming a county court's conviction and sentence for bigamy, holding that a voidable marriage will support a bigamy prosecution.On appeal from his bigamy conviction, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction because his prior marriage was legally invalid where a Nebraska marriage license was obtained but the solemnization occurred in Texas. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's prior marriage, even if not statutorily valid, was at least a voidable marriage; (2) a voidable marriage is treated as valid until judicially declared otherwise and will support a bigamy prosecution; and (3) Defendant's conviction was supported by the evidence and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the county court denying Appellant's motion for absolute discharge under the speedy trial statutes, holding that there was no merit to Appellant's appeal.Appellant was charged with assault and battery under the Omaha Municipal Code. The district court continued Appellant's trial for good cause, citing administrative orders regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion seeking absolute discharge on the ground that the State failed to bring him to trial within six months. The county court denied the motion. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the county court's order that found good cause for the continuances related to the pandemic. View "State v. Gnanaprakasam" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion.In his petition, Defendant asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to present an alibi defense and in failing to investigate and present evidence of other suspects and that the district court erred in denying his request to depose expert witnesses. The district court denied the petition after holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. View "State v. Stricklin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no error.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder, three counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, attempted intentional manslaughter, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. In his motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued, in part, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present an alibi defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's appeal was without merit. View "State v. Newman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's petition for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on one of his claims.Defendant was convicted of kidnapping, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping. Defendant later filed a petition for postconviction relief. The district court granted an evidentiary hearing on three of Defendant's claims and denied Defendant's remaining claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) because Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object on remand to the unauthorized sentence of life imprisonment without parole on the conspiracy conviction, the case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing; and (2) with respect to the remaining claims, Defendant failed to allege facts showing that he was entitled to relief. View "State v. Betancourt-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first degree sexual assault of a child, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's claims of trial error, and Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the trial court erred by, inter alia, refusing to appoint him a DNA expert and by sustaining the prosecution's objection to further use of a forensic video to refresh the victim's recollection; and (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in numerous ways. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's claims of trial error were without merit; and (2) all of Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit with the exception that this Court did not reach the merits of one of Defendant's ineffective assistance arguments. View "State v. Wood" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting driving under the influence, holding that there was no error.The State charged Defendant with several offenses arising out of a traffic stop. The State's theory at trial was that Defendant was under the influence of his prescription medications. On appeal, Defendant argued that his medications did not qualify as "any drug" under the relevant ordinance and, alternatively, that there was insufficient evidence that he was under the influence of those prescription medications. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the phrase "any drug" refers to all drugs, including Defendant's prescription medications; and (2) there was sufficient evidence that Defendant was under the influence of his prescription medications. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law