Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal from the district court’s order that denied his request to modify his probation order. In 2015, Appellant was convicted of proximately causing serious bodily injury to another while driving under the influence of alcohol. The district court placed Appellant on probation for a period of sixty months. In 2016, Appellant filed a motion to modify or clarify the probation order. The court concluded that it lacked authority to modify the terms of Appellant’s probation and overruled the motion. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s untimely challenge to its sentencing order through a motion to modify or clarify the probation order. View "State v. Irish" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of four counts of first degree sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse and the sentences imposed in connection with the convictions. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a mandatory minimum term of fifteen years and a maximum term of twenty years for each of the four sexual assault convictions, two of which were ordered to be served consecutively. The court held (1) Defendant failed to properly preserve his facial challenge to the statutory classification scheme under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.01; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering two of the mandatory minimum sentences to run consecutively. View "State v. Stone" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s admission of evidence obtained during a search of Defendant’s room. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from Defendant's bedroom following his consent to a search. The court found that the search warrant for the common areas of a house and a roommate’s bedroom was invalid but that Defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his bedroom and that the search was sufficiently attenuated from the invalid warrant. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the district court correctly determined that Defendant’s consent was voluntary and that it was not obtained by exploitation of the prior illegality of the search warrant. View "State v. Bray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court denying Defendant’s motion for absolute discharge, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for discharge based on Defendant’s statutory right to a speedy trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4)(b) because Defendant had permanently waived his statutory right to a speedy trial by asking for a continuance that resulted in extending the trial date beyond the statutory six-month period; and (2) there was no merit to Defendant’s constitutional speedy trial claim. View "State v. Gill" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a new trial, holding that the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied in this case.Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). The following day, the United States Supreme Court held in Birchfield v. North Dakota, __ U.S. ___ (2016), that a blood test may not be administered without a warrant as a search incident to an arrest for DUI. Defendant timely moved for a new trial, arguing that, in light of the new rule of constitutional law announced in Birchfield, it was error to admit the result of a warrantless test of his blood. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the good faith exception applies to warrantless blood draws connected prior to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Birchfield. View "State v. Hoerle" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed an order of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress the results of a chemical breath test. The court thus affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence for aggravating driving under the influence, holding that the district court did not err in finding that law enforcement (1) had reasonable suspicion to initiate a traffic stop; (2) properly executed a fifteen-minute observation period prior to the chemical breath test in accordance with title 177 of the Nebraska Administrative Code; and (3) complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,199 by allowing access to a telephone to arrange independent testing. View "State v. Jasa" on Justia Law

At issue was whether the county court erred in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress. The county court overruled Defendant’s motion after finding that the community caretaking exception to the Fourth Amendment applied. The district court and court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, albeit on different grounds, holding (1) because the initial police-citizen encounter did not amount to a seizure, it was not necessary to invoke the community caretaking exception; but (2) the circumstances clearly established reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, and therefore, the detention that followed the stop of Defendant’s vehicle was constitutionally permitted. View "State v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to first degree murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant was sixteen years old at the time of the murder. Defendant’s life sentence was later vacated pursuant to Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and Defendant was granted a resentencing. The district court resentenced Defendant to imprisonment for eighty years to life after a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s resentencing, holding (1) the sentencing court did not impose a de facto life sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Neb. Const. art. I, 9 and 15; (2) the district court did not err when it did not make specific findings of fact regarding age-related characteristics; and (3) Defendant’s sentence of eighty years’ to life imprisonment with parole eligibility at age fifty-six was not unconstitutionally disproportionate. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of terroristic threats, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and negligent child abuse but vacated his sentences and remanded the cause for resentencing, finding plain error in the sentencing.On appeal, Defendant arguing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in various respects and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of negligent child abuse. The court of appeals rejected Defendant’s claims and affirmed his convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and in part vacated and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the court of appeals did not err in rejecting Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and in affirming Defendant’s convictions on all counts; but (2) the district court imposed unauthorized sentences. View "State v. Mendez-Osorio" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s decision granting Defendant’s motion for DNA testing, holding that it was “plainly evident from the record” that the DNA testing Defendant sought in his motion was not within the purview of the DNA Testing Act (Act).After the district court granted Defendant’s request for DNA testing, Defendant received pharmaceogenetic testing. Based on the results, Defendant asserted that the dosage of the Zoloft medication he was taking at the time of the murder for which he was convicted was too high for his body to properly metabolize, causing him to be violent and homicidal. Defendant argued that he was entitled to relief under the Act because new scientific evidence could contribute to and establish defenses at trial of an inability to formulate intent, intoxication, or insanity. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for new trial or new sentencing hearing based on the pharmacogenetic testing results. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss Defendant’s motion for DNA testing, holding that the district court committed plain error in granting Defendant’s motion for DNA testing. View "State v. Robbins" on Justia Law