Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pleaded no contest to obstructing government operations for interfering the prosecution of a city employee in order to prevent the employee from being fired. The county court found Defendant guilty, sentenced him to thirty days in jail, and ordered him to pay $55 in court costs. The district court affirmed and conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) affirming the county court’s findings that there was sufficient factual basis to support the conviction; (2) finding that the amended complaint was adequate; and (3) finding that Defendant’s sentence was not excessive. View "State v. Wilkinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. The district court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment from five to fifteen years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in allowing the State to present on rebuttal extrinsic evidence of a prior incident in order to impeach Defendant’s testimony which he presented in his own defense; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction; and (3) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding, among other things, that the trial court did not err by (1) denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) admitting into evidence journal entries written by Defendant while incarcerated for another crime; (3) not excluding the testimony of certain witnesses on the grounds that Defendant was presented with a “Hobson’s choice” of either conducting effective cross-examination that would bring to light other bad acts or not conducting an effective cross-examination; and (4) giving Defendant a life sentence. View "State v. Oldson" on Justia Law

The victim testified that a man she knew (Abejide's brother) invited her over as she walked by his group, on the sidewalk drinking beer. The victim briefly talked and drank beer with them. As the victim was leaving, Abejide pulled her into an alley, where he started choking her and stated he was going to “knock [her] out.” The victim testified that she thought that Abejide was going to kill her and was trying to rape her. She screamed; a police officer arrived and handcuffed Abejide. The officer testified that he saw woman’s pants pulled down and Abejide’s penis exposed; the woman appeared “fearful” and said, repeatedly, “‘He’s trying to rape me.’” Two officers testified that Abejide appeared to be intoxicated. Abejide did not present any defense during his trial for first-degree sexual assault and terroristic threats. The court refused Abejide’s proposed instructions: to include attempted third-degree sexual assault as a lesser-included offense; to require the jury's unanimous agreement regarding whether Abejide acted with the intent to terrorize or whether he acted in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror; and setting forth an intoxication defense. The court instructed the jury that it could not consider Abejide’s voluntary intoxication in deciding whether he had the required intent. The jury found Abejide guilty. He had three prior convictions, including for sexual assault and violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act. The court sentenced Abejide to imprisonment for 10-20 years for attempted sexual assault and for 10 years for terroristic threats, to be served consecutively. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting challenges to the jury instructions and the sentence. View "State v. Abejide" on Justia Law

The Nebraska Constitution confers on the Legislature the authority to define crimes and fix their punishment and on the Parole Board “power to grant paroles after conviction and judgment, under such conditions as may be prescribed by law, for any offenses committed against the criminal laws of this state except treason and cases of impeachment.” A statute provides: Every committed offender shall be eligible for parole when the offender has served one-half the minimum term. Because it is impossible to determine when an offender has served one-half of a life sentence, the section has been interpreted to mean that an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment is not eligible for parole until the Board of Pardons commutes the sentence to a term of years. Adams, an inmate serving two sentences of life imprisonment, challenged the statute as an unconstitutional usurpation of the Board's authority. The district court dismissed and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the commutation requirement was a “condition” prescribed by the Legislature within the meaning of the constitution’s “conditions clause,” which “reserves to the Legislature the ability to add to or subtract from the [Board’s] power to grant paroles in all cases except in cases of treason or impeachment.” View "Adams v. State" on Justia Law

Shurigar submitted a “Nebraska Concealed Handgun Permit Application” and acknowledged that one year earlier, he had been found to be in possession of a loaded pistol in Oklahoma and had pled guilty to “Transporting Loaded Firearm in Motor Vehicle, Misdemeanor.” Because of this prior conviction, the State Patrol denied Shurigar’s application. The district court affirmed the denial, finding that Shurigar’s conviction disqualified him from obtaining a permit under Section 69-2433(8): An applicant shall: Not have had a conviction of any law of this state relating to firearms, unlawful use of a weapon, or controlled substances or of any similar laws of another jurisdiction within the ten years preceding the date of application. Shurigar argued that his conviction was not similar to Neb. Rev. Stat. 37-522, which provides: “It shall be unlawful to have or carry, except as permitted by law, any shotgun having shells in either the chamber, receiver, or magazine in or on any vehicle on any highway.” The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, stating that the Legislature deemed a person to be a risk for violating Section 37-522, which makes it unlawful to transport a loaded shotgun on a highway in Nebraska; there is no reason why a person violating another jurisdiction’s law against transporting a loaded pistol on a highway would be less of a risk of committing future crimes than a person transporting a loaded shotgun. View "Shurigar v. Nebraska State Patrol" on Justia Law

In November, 2003, Guitron was reported missing. Guitron’s remains were discovered in April 2010, under a woodpile on an abandoned farm in rural Kimball County. The cause of death was determined to be two gunshot wounds; a bullet recovered from Guitron’s skull was fired from a pistol purchased by Ash’s sister. Guitron’s death was found to have occurred on October 15, 2003. In August 2003, Ash and his 15-year old girlfriend, whom Ash later married, began living with Guitron in Fort Collins, Colorado. The three were methamphetamine users. After several weeks, Ash and Meehan moved out and began living in a tent near Grover, Colorado. Ash was ultimately convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. The Nebraska Supreme Court remanded because the court erred in denying Ash’s request for a continuance after the state disclosed, on the brink of trial, that a codefendant would be testifying pursuant to a plea agreement. Ash again was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, finding Ash’s claim of insufficient evidence to support the verdict without merit; that none of Ash’s claims of trial court error had merit; and that any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was either affirmatively disproved by the record or not sufficiently presented for review. View "State v. Ash" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The State filed a motion to deny an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s motion, and the district court granted the State’s request. Thereafter, the district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by denying an evidentiary hearing where Defendant’s motion did not allege any prejudice due to his trial counsel’s alleged deficient performance; and (2) the district court did not err by denying postconviction relief. View "State v. Abdulkadir" on Justia Law

Bryant Irish was convicted of driving under the influence and causing serious bodily injury. Dillon Fales was the victim of Irish’s crime. Before the court sentenced Irish, Fales sued Stanton County alleging that he was an innocent third party injured by the vehicular pursuit of Irish by Michael Unger, the Stanton County Sheriff. Unger petitioned for a public records writ of mandamus compelling the partial disclosure of Irish’s presentence report containing any statements made by Fales. The district court dismissed Unger’s petition, concluding that Irish’s presentence report was not a public record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Unger’s petition for a public records writ of mandamus because Irish’s presentence report is not a public record. View "State ex rel. Unger v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Defendant killed the victim in an attempt to perpetrate a robbery and that he used a firearm to do so; and (2) therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Dortch" on Justia Law