Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of marijuana, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.In his suppression motion, Defendant sought to suppress evidence found in his vehicle during a felony traffic stop. The stop was initiated based on law enforcement's belief that Defendant's vehicle matched the description in a police bulletin of a vehicle used in a shooting committed three days prior. In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the police bulletin was insufficient to justify the traffic stop. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of the suppression motion, holding (1) the felony traffic stop was a tier-two police-citizen encounter; and (2) the law enforcement officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Defendant's vehicle based on the police bulletin alone. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence, second offense, and speeding and operating a vehicle without a driver's license, holding that the Court could not consider Defendant's assignment of error that implicitly challenged the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2705.Section 25-2705 prohibits jury trials for criminal cases arising under city ordinances. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it failed to found that the county court had violated his right to a jury trial. The Noting that Defendant's appeal inextricably involved an implied challenge to the constitutionality of a statute, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Court could not reach the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide notice as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. 2-109(E). View "State v. Catlin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of violating a domestic abuse protection order, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the county court's denial of Defendant's motion for new trial.In his motion for new trial, Defendant requested that the county court vacate his conviction because of a stipulated order in his separate domestic case that purported to render the original protection order void ab initio. The county court denied the motion. The district court affirmed, concluding that the order in the domestic relations case reflected the parties’ negotiations after trial based on then-existing circumstances and was not newly discovered evidence relevant to Defendant's criminal trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's contention that the order in his domestic relations case was newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial in the criminal case. View "State v. Bartel" on Justia Law

In these consolidated criminal appeals, the Supreme Court declined to reach the merits of Appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Appellant's appeals were not perfected within thirty days after the entry of judgment.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered no contest pleas to some charged counts relating to a string of motor vehicle thefts and high-speed police chases. The court ultimately found Appellant guilty of seven felonies. Appellant later filed a notice of appeal, challenging the overruling of his motions to modify his sentences and challenging the sentence imposed on one conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that appellate jurisdiction was not perfected within thirty days of the entry of the judgment, and therefore, this Court must dismiss Appellant's appeals. View "State v. Melton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of two counts of possession of a controlled substance, holding that the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search of Defendant's vehicle.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to meet its burden of proving that the search fell within the inventory search exception to the warrant requirement. The court of appeals disagreed, concluding that the police did not use the inventory search as pretext for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that it was not possible on the record to determine whether the search was conducted in conformity with Omaha Police Department's standardized procedures governing inventory searches; and (2) therefore, the State failed to meet its burden to show that the search fell within the inventory search exception. View "State v. Briggs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying Defendant's motion for discharge, holding that the time Defendant spent incarcerated in Douglas County was properly attributable to Defendant for purposes of her speedy trial rights.Defendant was arrested in Lancaster County and charged with possession of methamphetamine. One day before her pretrial docket call, Defendant was arrested for shoplifting in Douglas County. Defendant was arrested on a bench warrant by authorities at Douglas County Department of Corrections but was not returned to Lancaster County. After Defendant was convicted and served her sentence in Douglas County for the shoplifting charge, Defendant was transported to Lancaster County. Defendant filed a motion for absolute charge, which the Lancaster County District Court denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Lancaster County District Court did not err in excluding from Defendant's speedy trial calculation the time she spent incarcerated while awaiting charges in Douglas County and while serving her sentence. View "State v. Blocher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentences imposed pursuant to jury convictions related to a prison escape, holding that Defendant's claims lacked merit.After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of escape, theft by unlawful taking, and operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest. The trial court found Defendant to be a habitual criminal and sentenced him to a combined consecutive term of eighty to 140 years' imprisonment. Defendant appealed, assigning fourteen errors in his appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in its rulings. View "State v. Clausen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court summarily denying Defendant's motion to vacate or modify seeking reinstatement of his appeal a postconviction ruling, holding that the district court erred when it denied Defendant's motion without a hearing.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. After Defendant brought an unsuccessful appeal he filed a petition for postconviction relief. The district court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, but his request to proceed in forma pauperis and the accompanying poverty affidavit were not timely filed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Defendant subsequently filed in the district court a motion to vacate or modify, seeking reinstatement of his appeal on the grounds that the negligent acts of prison officials in the mailroom at the penitentiary delayed the filing of his poverty affidavit. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a hearing on the motion, holding that Defendant's claim of official negligence was sufficient to obtain a hearing at which to submit proof to the court of his allegation of official negligence. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that there was no merit to the errors assigned and argued by Defendant.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in declining to direct a verdict and finding the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's convictions; (2) the district court did not err in determining that the evidence supported a conviction of second degree murder rather than sudden quarrel manslaughter; (3) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's insanity defense; and (4) the district court did not impose excessive sentences. View "State v. Stack" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that the district court did not err in admitting cell phone records for Defendant's phone and statements Defendant made to law enforcement.Prior to trial, Defendant filed motions to suppress his cell phone records and statements he made to law enforcement, arguing that the warrant authorizing the search of Defendant's cell phone records was obtained without probable cause and that his Miranda rights were violated when he invoked his right to remain silent and officers continued to question him. The district court denied the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting cell site location information evidence at trial; and (2) Defendant waived any right to assert error in the denial of his motion to suppress his statements made to law enforcement. View "State v. Cox" on Justia Law