Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's plea-based convictions of conspiracy to distribute or deliver a controlled substance (hydrocodone), conspiracy to distribute or deliver a controlled substance (tramadol), and child abuse, holding that there was no reversible error in the proceedings below.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in accepting Defendant's guilty pleas because the information expressly alleged overt acts in furtherance of the charged conspiracy to distribute and deliver hydrocodone and tramadol, and the factual basis was sufficient to satisfy Wharton's Rule and support Defendant's guilty pleas; (2) Defendant's assignment of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for counsel's failure to properly inform her of Wharton's Rule was without merit; and (3) the record was insufficient to reach Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance due to her trial counsel's alleged conflict of interest. View "State v. Theisen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for first-degree sexual assault, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting the English translation of Defendant's Spanish out-of-court statements as nonhearsay.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred when it admitted Luz Aguirre's Spanish-to-English translations of Defendant's out-of-court statements as a language conduit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where the translator of a defendant's out-of-court verbal or written statements from a foreign language to English is shown to be qualified to perform such translation, and where the translator testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination, the translation is admissible as non hearsay under Neb. R. Evid. 801(4); (2) the district court did not err in admitting the nonhearsay evidence; and (3) there was no merit to Defendant's remaining claims. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for possession of a controlled substance, holding that the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress.In his motion to suppress, Defendant asserted that he was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because the police didn't to have reasonable suspicion to detain and question him and that the search of his personal effects was unconstitutional because the circumstances did not justify a warrantless search. The trial court determined that reasonable suspicion supported a lawful detention for an investigatory stop and that probable cause existed to justify the search. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the detention of Defendant was an investigatory stop justified by reasonable suspicion; and (2) the search of Defendant's personal effects was undertaken with consent. View "State v. Saitta" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge in which he contended that the State failed to bring him to trial within the time required by Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207, holding that Defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial was not violated.In overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, the district court concluded that a period of delay that resulted from a continuance of a settlement conference granted at the State's request but to which Defendant's counsel consented did not count toward the six-month speedy trial deadline. On appeal, Defendant argued that the delay brought about by the continuance of a settlement conference does not result in a period of excluded time. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the continuance of the settlement conference resulted in excluded time; and (2) Defendant statutory right to a speedy trial was not violated. View "State v. Liming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant postconviction relief, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder on a felony murder theory and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant filed multiple motions for postconviction relief, which the district court denied without a hearing. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for counsel's failure to advise him of his right to testify and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for counsel's failure to assert on appeal that his right to self-representation was violated at trial. On remand, the district court found that Defendant was not entitled to relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying relief on Defendant's two remaining claims. View "State v. Ely" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to first degree felony murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's claims on appeal.On appeal, Defendant raised claims regarding the admission fo controlled substance and firearm evidence, the termination of a witness' deposition, sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motions in limine and in admitting evidence of controlled substances from Defendant's home and evidence of a firearm; (2) the admission of a single reference to "multiple packages of marijuana" was, at most, harmless error; (3) the evidence supported Defendant's convictions; and (4) the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel reached on direct appeal lacked merit. View "State v. Devers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the restitution component of Defendant's sentence, holding that the county court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution, but remanded the matter with directions to modify the written judgment to conform to the pronounced sentence.Defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident and reckless driving after crashing into the victim's unoccupied vehicle and fleeing the scene by foot. The county court ordered restitution in the amount of $10,347, the cost of repairing the vehicle. The district court affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing the district court erred in affirming the restitution order because there was insufficient evidence of actual damages to warrant the restitution and because he was not capable of paying the restitution ordered. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case, holding (1) the county court did not abuse its discretion in its calculation of the amount of the victim's "actual damages"; (2) the county court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration of Defendant's ability to pay the sentence of restitution; and (3) there was plain error in the county court's failure to conform the written judgment to the pronounced judgment. View "State v. Street" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for second degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony, holding that there was no abuse in the trial proceedings.Specifically, the Court held (1) any error in the admission of statements Defendant made during two interviews was harmless, and the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress a letter to his sister; (2) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the search of his cell phone; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it prohibited Defendant from presenting evidence regarding the victim’s mental health and use of alcohol and prescription drugs; (4) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant the right to cross-examine a witness on issues the court determined to lack probative value; and (5) the district court did not err when it allowed evidence that results of certain DNA tests were uninterpretable. View "State v. Said" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and sentence of a term of incarceration not less than two years nor more than three years, holding that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that there was no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in permitting the State to recall the victim's mother; (2) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to dismiss; (3) there was sufficient evidence to find Defendant guilty of negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury; (4) there was sufficient evidence to find Defendant guilty of negligent child abuse; and (5) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court adjudicating Abigail G.'s son, Vladimir G., to be a child within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a), holding that although Abigail could invoke her Fifth Amendment right not to testify in this adjudication, any error on the part of the juvenile court in requiring her testimony was not reversible.During the adjudication hearing, Abigail objected to testifying based on Fifth Amendment grounds. The court overruled Abigail's objection. After the hearing, the county court filed an order finding Vladimir to be a child within the meaning of section 43-247(3)(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if the court erred in failing to determine that at least part of Abigail's testimony was incriminating and therefore protected by Abigail's invocation of her Fifth Amendment privilege, such error was not reversible because there was sufficient evidence to support the adjudication without such testimony and because Abigail's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the adjudication that Vladimir was a child within the meaning of section 43-247(3)(a). View "In re Interest of Vladimir G." on Justia Law