Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon, not a firearm, to commit a felony, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's appeal.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in finding that he did not prove his insanity defense and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the trial proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant was not insane at the time he killed the victim; and (2) trial counsel was not ineffective for stipulating to the underlying facts of the murder. View "State v. John" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that the district court did not err in determining that Defendant was not entitled to absolute discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds.Defendant was charged with one count of first degree sexual assault. Defendant later filed a motion for absolute discharge, arguing that the State violated his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial and that the district court erred by finding that continuances of trial in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were for good cause. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant was not entitled to absolute discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds; and (2) this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review Defendant's claim that he was entitled to absolute discharge on constitutional speedy trial grounds. View "State v. Abernathy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first degree murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony, holding that there was no basis for reversal.On appeal, Defendant argued that the information was insufficient to charge him with conspiracy, there was insufficient evidence to convict him, and the State erroneously impeached its own witness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State satisfied the overt act requirement by alleging the substantive offense that was the object of the conspiracy as the overt act; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; and (3) even assuming the prosecution improperly impeached its witness, any error was harmless. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence but vacated the portion of the court's postconviction order prematurely addressing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, holding that Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims were either insufficiently raised or affirmatively refuted by the record.In pro se motions, Defendant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and asked for appointment of counsel. After appointing counsel for Defendant the court granted as relief a new direct appeal. Defendant's notice of appeal, motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and poverty affidavit were filed within thirty days after the final order granting the new direct appeal. The property affidavit, however, had been executed by Defendant more than forty-five days before the filing of the notice of appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction but vacated the postconviction order addressing Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims unrelated to the request for relief of a new direct appeal, holding that, with one exception, Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the new direct appeal were either insufficiently raised or affirmatively refuted by the record. View "State v. Blake" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of disturbing the peace and of assault or menacing threats, both in violation of city ordinances in Lincoln, Nebraska, holding that there was no error in Defendant's convictions or sentences.Defendant's conviction arose from his acts of shouting in a loud, menacing, and persistent manner from his apartment's balcony at persons across the street. Defendant appealed his convictions and their resulting ten-day jail sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if Defendant's speech was constitutionally protected, the State may regulate it through reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech; and (2) Defendant's conviction for assault or menacing threats was supported by sufficient evidence. View "State v. Grant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion for default judgment and the dismissal of his motions seeking postconviction relief, holding that there was no error.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant later sought postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel and then filed a pro se motion for default judgment. The district court denied the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no merit to Defendant's first and second assignments of error with regard to the denial of his motion for default judgment; and (2) the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant's second amended motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Burries" on Justia Law

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