Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reducing Defendant's sentence imposed for his firearm conviction as excessive, holding that the court of appeals erred.Defendant pled no contest to manslaughter and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The district court accepted Defendant's pleas, found him guilty, and sentenced him to fifteen to twenty years' imprisonment for manslaughter and thirty to forty years' imprisonment for the firearm possession conviction, to be served consecutively. The court of appeals reduced Defendant's sentence on count II to a sentence of ten to fifteen years' to run consecutively to the sentence for the manslaughter conviction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant on the firearm conviction. View "State v. Morton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for a new trial filed after Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person were upheld on direct appeal, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the newly discovered testimony would not have produced a substantial difference in the result had it been offered and admitted at trial because it was not credible. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Appellant's second motion for discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds, holding that a defendant can permanently waive his or her statutory speedy trial rights even if he or she does not pursue an appeal.Appellant was charged with a crime and filed a motion for discharge on statutory speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled the motion, and Appellant did not appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a second motion for discharge. The district court overruled the motion, concluding that, by filing her first motion, Appellant permanently waived her statutory speedy trial rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a defendant permanently waives her speedy trial rights when an ultimately unsuccessful motion for discharge results in the continuance of a timely trial to a date outside of the statutory six-month period, calculated on the date the motion for discharge was filed. View "State v. Riessland" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, in which Defendant alleged violations of his constitutional and statutory rights to a speedy trial, holding that the district court did not err.On appeal from the denial of his motion for discharge, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it concluded that continuances ordered by the court in response to the COVID-19 pandemic were for good cause and therefore should be excluded from the calculation of the time for bringing him to trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that neither Defendant's statutory nor his federal or state constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated under the circumstances of this case. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law