Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Nebraska Supreme Court heard an appeal from Angelina M. Clark who was convicted for terroristic threats and third-degree sexual assault. Clark argued that her trial before an all-male jury violated her constitutional rights to a fair trial and an impartial jury. She also contended that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for terroristic threats and that her trial counsel was ineffective.The court held that Clark waived any objection to the all-male jury by failing to challenge the jurors for disqualification during the trial. It also determined that there was sufficient evidence to support Clark's conviction for terroristic threats. The court found that Clark's claim of ineffective counsel was without merit as the statements her counsel failed to object to were not hearsay, and any objection to them on hearsay grounds would have been meritless. Finally, the court rejected Clark’s claim that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion in limine to exclude certain testimony, as she failed to show she suffered prejudice as a result of this alleged failure.The court affirmed the decision of the lower court, holding that Clark's claims were without merit. View "State v. Clark" on Justia Law

In the case, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Bernard R. Turner for first degree murder. The court found no error in the trial court’s decision to grant the state’s motion to continue the trial due to the discovery of new evidence, a cell phone, a week prior to the original trial date. The Supreme Court stated that the timing of the state’s disclosure of the cell phone and its admission at trial did not violate Turner’s right to due process under Brady v. Maryland or Nebraska Revised Statute § 29-1912. The court also found that Turner waived his right to relief from the state’s belated disclosure by failing to request a continuance.The court further determined that the evidence presented at trial, including the testimony of a key witness who claimed Turner confessed to him, was sufficient to support Turner’s conviction. The court noted that a voluntary confession, with slight corroboration, can establish the corpus delicti as well as the defendant’s guilty participation.Finally, the court rejected Turner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Turner claimed his trial counsel failed to zealously advocate for him and did not present an adequate defense. However, the court found these claims were insufficiently specific and that Turner failed to show that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient or that this deficient performance actually prejudiced his defense. View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

The defendant, Clay Y. Bixby, was convicted for driving under the influence (DUI), which was his third offense. He contended that the district court had erred in using evidence of his two prior DUI convictions to enhance his sentence. The Nebraska Supreme Court rejected this claim.The court noted that the state had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the offenses underlying Bixby’s previous convictions occurred within 15 years of the date of his current offense, as required for sentence enhancement. The court also rejected Bixby's claim that his South Dakota DUI offense was not sufficiently similar to his Nebraska DUI offense to be valid for sentence enhancement. The court determined that Bixby’s South Dakota DUI offense, as statutorily defined in South Dakota, would have been a violation of the Nebraska DUI statute and was thus valid to be used for sentence enhancement.Lastly, the court rejected Bixby's argument that the district court failed to consider mitigating factors before sentencing. The court explained that under the precedent set in State v. Vann, any conviction record obtained after Gideon v. Wainwright is entitled to a presumption of regularity. Once the government establishes the existence of a prior conviction, it becomes the defendant’s burden to prove that he or she did not have counsel and did not waive the right to counsel at the time of conviction. The court concluded that Bixby's South Dakota DUI conviction was valid for sentence enhancement under this precedent, even though the record did not show whether Bixby had or waived counsel at the time of his sentencing in that case.The court ultimately affirmed the sentence enhancement and Bixby's conviction for DUI, third offense. View "State v. Bixby" on Justia Law

The defendant, Anthony W. Earnest, pled no contest to charges of driving under the influence (DUI) causing serious bodily injury and third degree assault. Following a two-vehicle accident, Earnest was charged and released on bond with specific conditions. However, following another incident where he was found driving under influence, his bond was revoked. The district court sentenced Earnest to 3 years’ imprisonment, 18 months’ post-release supervision, a $10,000 fine, and a 15-year license revocation for the DUI causing serious bodily injury, and 1 year’s imprisonment and a $1,000 fine for the third degree assault.On appeal, Earnest argued that the district court erred by imposing a $10,000 fine without considering his ability to pay and by imposing excessive sentences. The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court was not required to consider Earnest's ability to pay before imposing fines. The court also noted that while the district court misunderstood the law about imposing consecutive sentences, it was not prejudicial to Earnest; the court would have imposed consecutive sentences even if it had understood concurrent sentences were permissible. Additionally, the court rejected Earnest’s argument that the district court failed to consider factors that weighed in favor of a more lenient sentence. Concluding that the district court did not commit any prejudicial error, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "State v. Earnest" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the convictions and sentences of Trenton R. Esch for first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. Esch argued that the jury instructions concerning reasonable doubt and intoxication were in error, and that his counsel was ineffective in failing to object to these instructions. The court found that the instructions, when read as a whole, correctly conveyed the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury and were not misleading. Further, the court ruled that there was no plain error indicative of a probable miscarriage of justice. The court also determined that Esch's counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to the instructions or in his handling of the evidence and arguments related to Esch's intoxication. The court rejected Esch's remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel due to an insufficient record. The case centered around Esch's killing of his stepmother, with the primary issue at trial being whether Esch shot her purposely and with deliberate and premeditated malice, or whether he acted impulsively under the influence of alcohol. The jury found Esch guilty of first degree murder. View "State v. Esch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and unlawful discharge of a firearm, holding that there was no reversible error or abuse of discretion in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for unlawful discharge of a firearm; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion for new trial; (4) Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not sufficiently pled; and (5) the cumulative error doctrine did not apply in this case. View "State v. Dap" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court ordering reinstatement of D.H.'s firearm rights, holding that there was no error on the part of the district court.After D.H. attempted suicide in 1995 a mental health board obtained a mental health commitment. As a result of D.H.'s commitment, federal and state statutes restricted his rights to purchase and possess firearms. In 2011, the Legislature enacted Neb. Rev. State. 71-963, which created a procedure whereby those subject to firearm restrictions resulting from a mental health-related commitment or adjudication could petition to have those restrictions removed. D.H. filed a motion to remove his firearm restrictions under section 71-963. The Mental Health Board of the 10th Judicial District of Nebraska denied the petition. The district court initially affirmed the denial but, upon reconsideration, granted the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not commit an error of law or abuse its discretion in sustaining D.H.'s motion to reconsider, alter, or amend. View "In re Interest of D.H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no error.Appellant pled no contest to three counts of possession of child pornography and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment of fifteen to twenty years on each count. Appellant later filed his motion for postconviction relief, asserting various claims for relief. The district court denied summarily denied the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) did not err when it determined that Appellant's due process claim related to competency was procedurally barred; (2) did not abuse its discretion in affirming the district court's denial of Appellant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; and (3) did not err when it concluded that Appellant's due process claim related to competency was procedurally barred. View "State v. Harms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of possession of a controlled substance and vacated his sentence, holding that the Nebraska Probation Administration Act (the Act) does not permit the increase of the term of probation to which the offender was sentenced before a hearing where the violation of probation is established by clear and convincing evidence.The State charged Defendant with possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, based on items found in his bedroom following a probation search. The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that Defendant was still on probation and subject to his probation terms at the time of the search. Defendant was subsequently convicted and sentenced. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant did not voluntarily consent to the search, and the special needs exception to the warrant requirement did not apply; (2) Defendant was not subject to conditions of probation and was not obligated to permit the search at issue; (3) the search of Defendant's bedroom was unreasonable, and the items found therein should have been suppressed; and (4) because the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction, double jeopardy did not bar a second trial. View "State v. Simons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and three of its officials regarding computation of Plaintiff's tentative mandatory release date (TRD), holding that there was no error.Plaintiff, an inmate, filed an action for declaratory judgment alleging that DCS was responsible for actions infringing on her constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by concluding that her TRD was consistent with Nebraska statutes and case law. The district court dismissed the case for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. 1983; and (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-911 for Plaintiff's claims against DCS. View "Williams v. Frakes" on Justia Law