Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's third motion for post conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no merit to Appellant's claims on appeal.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and other felony offenses and sentenced to death. In his third postconviction motion, Defendant alleged that the Legislature's statute providing for the repeal of the death penalty, 2015 Neb. Laws, L.B. 268, changed his death sentence to life imprisonment and that the rejection of L.B. 268 by public referendum imposed a death sentence, the referendum was constitutionally impermissible, and he was harmed thereby. The district court concluded that Defendant failed to allege sufficient facts that demonstrated a violation of his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying postconviction relief. View "State v. Torres" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motions for DNA testing and appointment of counsel, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motions because Defendant did not demonstrate that DNA testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence.Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for DNA testing and requested that counsel be appointed to represent him. The district court denied the motions, determining that Defendant failed to show such testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to the claim that he was wrongfully convicted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for DNA testing and appointment of counsel. View "State v. Ildefonso" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err when it rejected each of Defendant's contentions regarding his sentences.Defendant was convicted in the county court of twenty-one misdemeanor counts of violating a protection order and sentenced to county jail for 180 days on each count, to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that his sentences were excessive, disproportionate, and invalid. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no plain error when the county court did not announce at the sentencing hearing where Defendant's sentences would be served; (2) Defendant's individual sentences were not grossly disproportionate; and (3) the district court did not err when it affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Becker" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court sustained the State's exception to the order of the district court dismissing the State's appeal in this criminal case, holding that the county court erred in directing a verdict in favor of Defendant at the close of the State's case in chief under a complaint for first degree trespass.Defendant had received a "stay away" letter intended to apply to businesses owned by the parent company issuing the letter, including two businesses owned by the same company and located in the same building where Defendant entered during business hours and exited when told to leave. The county court apparently concluded that the affirmative defense to criminal trespass did not encompass compliance with a "stay away" letter directed toward Defendant. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court sustained the State's exception to the district court's order, holding (1) Defendant did not comply with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises for purposes of the "open to the public" affirmative defense set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-522; and (2) there was no legal basis for granting a directed verdict in Defendant's favor. View "State v. Stanko" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree sexual assault, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Defendant was eighteen years old when he had sex with the victim, who was ten years old. At issue on appeal were several rulings by the district court relating to the knowledge element of the statute and whether age could be a factor in the jury's determination of capacity under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319(1)(b). The Supreme Court held (1) the trial court properly instructed the jury; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support a determination that the victim was incapable of consent by virtue of her stage of development; (3) the trial court did not err by admitting hearsay testimony regarding the fact that the victim was diagnosed with ADHD, ODD, and DMDD; (5) the trial court did not err by excluding evidence of the victim’s other sexual conduct; (6) the trial court properly denied Defendant's motion for a new trial; and (7) the sentence imposed was not excessive. View "State v. Dady" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of criminal conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, holding that the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress and that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in declining to suppress evidence obtained during and derived from an electronic interception of Defendant's cellular telephone communications; (2) the district court correctly determined that the State's submission of an application to intercept Defendant's communications to the Attorney General two days prior to submitting it to the court did not violate the timing requirement of Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-291; and (3) the interception of Defendant's communications while he was outside the State of Nebraska was within the territorial jurisdiction of the court because the communications were redirected and first listened to at a Nebraska listening post. View "State v. Brye" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of attempted possession of a burglar's tools and sentence of one year in jail with credit for twenty-three days served, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed.On appeal, Defendant argued that his sentence was excessive and that the district court erred by awarding him insufficient credit for time served against his jail sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by granting Defendant only twenty-three days of credit against his one-year jail sentence; and (2) where the record demonstrated that the court considered all of the relevant sentencing factors and clearly articulated its rationale for imposing the one-year jail sentence, there was no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed. View "State v. Harms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for four counts of first degree sexual assault, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not commit plain error when it admitted the DNA evidence that linked Defendant to the assaults; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant's motion to remove counsel and appoint substitute counsel; and (3) regarding Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, either the record on direct appeal showed the claim was without merit or that the record was not sufficient to review the claim. View "State v. Weathers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal of the district court's judgment revoking Appellant's post release supervision and ordering that he serve the entirety of the time remaining on his post release supervision term in jail, holding that because Appellant had completely served his sentence, his appeal was moot.Appellant was convicted of a felony offense in one district court and multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses in another district court. Both sentences included terms of incarceration and terms of post release supervision. After Appellant served the incarceration portion of his sentences and had been released the State filed a motion in one district court alleging that he had violated the terms of his postrelease supervision. The court revoked Defendant's postrelease supervision and ordered that he serve the time remaining on his postrelease supervision in jail. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court ordered that he serve more time in jail that was allowable by law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Appellant's completion of the sentence rendered his appeal moot, and none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first degree murder, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting DNA analysis conducted by using TrueAllele probabilistic genotyping software over Defendant's challenges pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001).DNA evidence presented at Defendant's jury trial linked him to the murder for which he was convicted. During the jury trial, Defendant raised Daubert/Schafersman challenges to the DNA evidence, challenging TrueAllele's methodology. The district court admitted the evidence, applying the Daubert/Schafersman analytical framework and determining that the methodology of TrueAllele probabilistic genotyping was reliable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing admission of the TrueAllele evidence. View "State v. Simmer" on Justia Law