Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for discharge on statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant was not entitled to discharge.The State filed an information against Defendant charging him with theft by receiving stolen property and other offenses. After the trial was continued several times Defendant filed a motion for discharge on statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed after applying the four factor-test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), holding that neither Defendant's statutory nor constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. View "State v. Lovvorn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence with a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or higher, first offense, holding that, assuming a warrant for Defendant's blood draw was invalid, the good faith exception applied and exclusion of the blood evidence was not required.After a bench trial before the county court, Defendant appealed his conviction to the district court. Defendant argued that the county court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his blood test on the grounds that the affidavit supporting the warrant for the blood draw was insufficient to support a probable cause finding. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that the warrant was insufficient to support a finding of probable cause, the good faith exception set forth in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applied; and (2) therefore, the district court did not err in affirming Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Kruse" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding in favor of Defendants and dismissing Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 action, holding that, under the doctrine set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), Plaintiff's claims were not cognizable under section 1983.Plaintiff moved out of the Johnson Lake area after harassment protection orders were issued against him. Although Plaintiff was given a "ban notice" he repeatedly trespassed, Plaintiff received two convictions for trespass. In the instant complaint, Plaintiff allegedly that he was unconstitutionally excluded from the Johnson Lake area in that he could not travel or reside there or engage in recreation and his occupation. The district court found in favor of Defendants on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's convictions for trespassing were fundamentally inconsistent with the various civil claims alleged in his complaint, and therefore, Plaintiff's section 1983 claims were not cognizable under the Heck doctrine. View "Maloley v. Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals affirming the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant for third degree assault on an officer, holding that there was no error in the jury instructions.Defendant was in a hospital emergency room after ingesting methamphetamine and was administered medications by hospital personnel. The medications, however, caused Defendant to become agitated rather than relaxing him. Defendant subsequently assaulted an officer. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it refused his proposed insanity defense instruction and instead gave an instruction regarding both voluntary and involuntary intoxication. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it refused Defendant's proposed insanity defense instruction; (2) the evidence did not support an instruction regarding both voluntary and involuntary intoxication; and (3) the intoxication instruction given in this case correctly stated the law and was not misleading. View "State v. Bigelow" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of four counts each of murder in the first degree, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person and sentencing Defendant to death, holding that the district court did not err in accepting Defendant's pleas of no contest.During the criminal proceedings, the trial court granted Defendant's motion to represent himself and accepted Defendant's waiver of his right to a jury trial. Defendant entered a plea of no contest to every count. After a sentencing hearing, Defendant was sentenced to death for each of the four murder counts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was competent to enter his pleas of no contest, and the pleas were valid; (2) the court did not commit reversible error when it allowed Defendant to proceed pro se; (3) the trial court did not err in determining that Defendant was competent; (4) the trial court did not err by denying Defendant's motion to preclude the death penalty as a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the state and federal constitutions; and (5) Defendant's challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty procedure were unavailing. View "State v. Jenkins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the court of appeals reversing Defendant's plea-based conviction for felony child abuse, holding that the court of appeals properly found that there was not a sufficient factual basis for the plea but erred in its disposition.The court of appeals reversed the district court's order accepting Defendant's no contest plea to felony child abuse and vacated that conviction, concluding that the factual basis presented by the State was not sufficient to support Defendant's no contest plea, and affirmed Defendant's conviction for attempted possession of a controlled substance. The court then vacated the sentence and remanded the matter for resentencing on Defendant's conviction for attempted possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the court of appeals with directions to reverse both convictions and vacate the sentencing, holding that the district court abused its discretion in finding a sufficient factual basis to support Appellant's no contest plea to child abuse but held that the court of appeals erred in its disposition because it focused only on the conviction for felony child abuse rather than setting forth a remedy focused on the entire plea agreement. View "State v. Ettleman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of manufacturing a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a school and possession of a controlled substance, holding that the lower court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during and after his interaction with law enforcement.Defendant argued that suppression was warranted because he was unlawfully seized, his statements were obtained in violation of Miranda, and his consent to the search was coerced. The district court concluded that the initial seizure of Defendant was appropriate, Defendant's other statements were not made during a custodial interrogation, and Defendant's consent to the search of his residence was voluntary and not coerced. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights were not violated in this case. View "State v. Schriner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that there was no merit to the assignments of error that the Court could reach on direct appeal.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in four separate instances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion when imposing the sentences because the court considered relevant factors and did not consider improper factors; and (2) three of Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel lacked merit, and the record was insufficient to address the fourth claim on direct appeal. View "State v. Blaha" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that Appellant's counsel did not provide ineffective assistance.Appellant pled no contest to second degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Appellant later filed an amended motion for postconviction relief asserting two claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant did not allege sufficient facts and that the record affirmatively disproved his claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the facts alleged were insufficient to show deficient conduct by trial counsel and that the record affirmatively disproved Defendant's allegations. View "State v. Privett" on Justia Law

After the charge against Appellant for theft by unlawful taking was dismissed the Supreme Court reversed the district court's order granting in part Appellant's motion for return of property seized from him and originally alleged to be stolen, holding that the burden of proof was not properly applied.As part of a plea agreement, the State dismissed the charge against Appellant of theft by unlawful taking. Thereafter, Appellant filed a motion for return of the property seized from him. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and then ordered some items of property returned to Appellant and others returned to Appellant's former employer. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the district court erred as a matter of law by requiring Appellant, as the proponent of the motion seeking the return of property seized from him, to prove ownership of the property seized. View "State v. Ebert" on Justia Law