Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Defendant’s dump truck struck the rear of a car that had stopped or slow due to highway construction. The collision forced the car off the highway, causing it to roll. The driver was killed as a result. Defendant was subsequently convicted of “unlawful act manslaughter” in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-305. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of manslaughter. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to vacate Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the State did not prove that Defendant acted with the mens era required to convict him under section 28-305. View "State v. Carman" on Justia Law

In 1999, Appellant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction. In 2009, Appellant filed a second motion for postconviction relief, along with a motion for new trial and a motion for writ of error coram nobis, alleging newly discovered evidence. In 2010, Appellant was permitted to file a third amended motion for postconviction relief adding allegations of newly discovered evidence. The district court dismissed the postconviction action pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3003 because the motions for new trial and for writ of error coram nobis were still pending in the district court, concluding that Appellant’s simultaneous motions were an acknowledgement that the postconviction motion was not the exclusive remedy available to him as required by section 29-3003. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Appellant had no possibility of obtaining relief through his motion for new trial and motion for writ of error coram nobis that were filed simultaneously with the postconviction motion, the district court erred in dismissing the postconviction action under section 29-3003. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant 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. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred when it denied Appellant an evidentiary hearing on three of his claims; but (2) the district court did not otherwise err in its judgment. View "State v. Nolan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for life for the first degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and affirmed his sentences as modified, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to give a choice of evils instruction and in giving an instruction defining premeditation that did not change or contradict the statutory definition; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for first degree murder; (3) the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments were no improper; (4) the district court properly modified Defendant’s invalid oral sentence of life imprisonment by removing erroneous language of “without the possibility of parole” in the written order; (5) the sentences imposed by the district court for Defendant’s remaining convictions were not an abuse of discretion; and (6) the court committed plain error in the manner in which it ordered time served to be credited. View "State v. Custer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court overruled Defendant’s postconviction motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing and directed the trial court to decide if Defendant’s trial counsel failed to utilize a statement the State’s key witness made to Defendant’s girlfriend to the effect that Defendant was innocent. On remand, the district court again overruled Defendant’s postconviction motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err by (1) excluding certain out-of-court statements on hearsay grounds; and (2) concluding that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Poe" on Justia Law