Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) admitting the testimony of a police officer concerning the meaning of certain cell phone calls and text messages between Defendant and other persons involved in the drug conspiracy; (2) denying Defendant’s motions to continue trial or exclude the testimony of a witness despite the State’s failure to timely disclose the person’s status as a witness; and (3) convicting Defendant of a Class 1B felony instead of a Class II felony and sentencing Defendant to twenty to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. For reasons not relevant to this appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause for another trial. On remand, after a jury-waived trial, Defendant was again found guilty of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of forty years to life. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) finding certain witnesses unavailable and admitting transcripts of their testimony from the first trial; (2) admitting hearsay testimony under the excited utterance exception; (3) admitting a transcript of a jail call between Defendant and his father; and (4) sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Trice" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree sexual assault of a child and related crimes. Defendant was sentenced to forty-one to 110 years of imprisonment, thirty-five of those years being “hard” years. Defendant appealed both his convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and remanded the cause for resentencing, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting certain exhibits into evidence; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding Defendant’s photo albums; (3) the trial court did not err in allowing hearsay testimony as prior consistent statements; (4) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (5) Defendant waived his right to assert the issue that the court erred in not declaring a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct; and (6) the trial court made a mistake in law in imposing Defendant’s sentences. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was acquitted of first degree sexual assault and convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to amend the information. Defendant filed a plea in bar on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the plea in bar. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the operative information, after the amendment, violated Defendant’s right to not be subject to double jeopardy because the primary issue had already been litigated and decided in Defendant’s favor. View "State v. Lavalleur" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four felonies arising from his assaults of his former wife. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to confidential communications with his counsel and the right to have appointment of trial counsel without the interference of the prosecutor because a series prosecutors had possession of his confidential trial strategy before his trial. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and vacated Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) when Defendant’s confidential trial strategy was disclosed to prosecuting attorneys, a rebuttable presumption arose that Defendant’s trial was tainted by a Sixth Amendment violation; and (2) the court’s procedures were inadequate to rebut this presumption and ensure that Defendant received a fair trial. View "State v. Bain" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of criminal nonsupport for failing to pay four months of child support. The district court found Defendant was a habitual criminal and enhanced his sentences accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) the district court did not violate the Sixth Amendment when it failed to submit to the jury the issue of whether Defendant’s nonsupport was in violation of any order of the court; (3) there was no error in the court’s failure to require a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense of misdemeanor criminal nonsupport; (4) the State violated Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2221 in by failing to give Defendant three-day notice of the enhancement hearing, but the violation did not require reversal; and (5) Defendant’s sentences were not excessive and were not in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Erpelding" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of third degree sexual assault of a child and three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of other bad acts/uncharged misconduct; (3) the district court did not err in answering the jury’s question about the exact time of the commission of the offense alleged in count one; and (4) there was plain error in the sentences given by the district court, and the sentences are hereby amended by reducing the mandatory minimum sentence that Defendant must serve before he is eligible for good time from twenty-five years imposed by the district court to fifteen years as provided by Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.01(2). View "State v. Samayoa" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the district court erred when it admitted evidence related to prior bad acts and other evidence, and that she was actually innocent. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant’s assignments of error. View "State v. DeJong" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree sexual assault. Defendant appealed, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s alleged breach of the plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State materially breached the plea agreement but that the Court could not resolve Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the record did not show if Defendant’s trial counsel had a strategic reason for not objecting. Thereafter, Defendant moved for postconviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court overruled the motion, concluding that the State’s breach of the plea agreement had not made the proceeding “fundamentally unfair” and that an objection would have “no merit.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to the State’s material breach of the plea agreement. Remanded. View "State v. Sidzyik" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant, a maintenance supervisor at the Nebraska Correctional Center for Women, was convicted of first degree sexual abuse of an inmate. Defendant was sentenced to one to two years’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made during a polygraph examination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, because while Defendant may have had a subjective belief that he was compelled to take the polygraph examination on threat of the loss of his job, the belief was not objectively reasonable. View "State v. Weichman" on Justia Law