Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense. Defendant appealed, arguing that the county court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress because the warrantless drawing of his blood did not satisfy any exception to the requirement of a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The district court affirmed the conviction, concluding that Defendant gave informed consent to the blood draw, and therefore, a search warrant was not necessary. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a blood draw of an arrestee in a DUI case is a search subject to Fourth Amendment principles, and when the State claims the blood draw was proper pursuant to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, actual voluntary consent is to be determined by reference to the totality of the circumstances, one of which is the existence of an implied consent statute; and (2) the county court did not err when it determined that Defendant consented to the search and, therefore, did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Modlin" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant, who is Chinese and only speaks “some English,” was convicted of driving under the influence, third offense. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a chemical breath test, arguing he was not properly advised of his right to obtain an evaluation by an independent physician and additional laboratory testing because, despite an obvious language barrier, the arresting officer failed to ensure that he understood his rights in a language he could understand. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding that the district court did not err when it determined that there was neither a statutory nor constitutional requirement for the officer to advise Defendant of his right to independent evaluation and testing under Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,199, and therefore, the officer’s failure to give an advisement in a language Defendant understood was not a violation of his due process or equal protection rights. View "State v. Wang" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree assault, two counts of second degree assault, and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant’s convictions and sentences for both first degree assault and second degree assault with respect to each victim did not violate his rights against double jeopardy; (2) the district court’s evidentiary rulings were not erroneous and did not violate Defendant’s right of confrontation or his right to present a complete defense; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Ballew" on Justia Law

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 71-1207, a mental health board “shall” hold a hearing within seven days after the subject is taken into emergency protective custody. Appellant was convicted of sexual assault on a child. Before Appellant finished his sentence, the Mental Health Board of the Fourth Judicial District (Board) issued a warrant directing that Appellant remain in custody under the Sex Offender Commitment Act (SOCA) until a commitment hearing. The hearing was held approximately five weeks later. The Board determined that Appellant was a dangerous sex offender and placed him in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services for inpatient treatment. Appellant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the Board’s failure to hold a hearing within seven days violated the SOCA and his right to due process. The district court dismissed Appellant’s habeas petition, concluding that the seven-day time limit in section 71-1207 is directory, not mandatory. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the seven-day time limit for holding a hearing under the statute is directory, and therefore, the untimeliness of the commitment hearing in this case did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction. View "D.I. v. Gibson" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with three counts of third degree domestic assault arising from the same incident. Each count alleged that Defendant had violated a different subsection of the same statute. The court subsequently dismissed one count. The jury proceeded to convict Defendant of one count and acquitted her of the other. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State could not charge her with multiple counts under a single statute if each count arose from the same incident. The district court concluded that the presence of multiple counts in the information required it to reverse Defendant’s conviction. The Supreme Court sustained the State’s objection to the district court’s judgment, as the State did not punish Defendant multiple times for the same offense or subject her to multiple prosecutions. View "State v. Kleckner" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with three counts of third degree domestic assault arising from the same incident. Each count alleged that Defendant had violated a different subsection of the same statute. The court subsequently dismissed one count. The jury proceeded to convict Defendant of one count and acquitted her of the other. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State could not charge her with multiple counts under a single statute if each count arose from the same incident. The district court concluded that the presence of multiple counts in the information required it to reverse Defendant’s conviction. The Supreme Court sustained the State’s objection to the district court’s judgment, as the State did not punish Defendant multiple times for the same offense or subject her to multiple prosecutions. View "State v. Kleckner" on Justia Law

John Joubert murdered two children in 1983. Mark Pettit was in the process of writing a book about Joubert when he attempted to gain access to two graphic drawings that Joubert had created while Joubert was on death row. The drawing had been confiscated as contraband by authorities with the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS). The prison warden refused to release the drawings to Pettit, and Joubert was subsequently executed. In 2013, as the thirtieth anniversary of Joubert’s crimes approached, Pettit requested access to the drawings for inspection and reproduction. DCS refused the request, stating that the drawings had been placed in Joubert’s institutional file and were not subject to further disclosure by DCS. The district court ordered DCS to permit Pettit to inspect, examine, and reproduce the confiscated drawings, concluding that Pettit had showed good cause for inspection and reproduction of the drawings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Pettit failed to demonstrate a legally sufficient reason for inspection of the drawings. View "Pettit v. Neb. Dept. of Corr. Servs." on Justia Law

In 1998, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and other crimes. These appeals were based upon Appellant’s third motion for postconviction relief. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. Appellant appealed from the denial of his postconviction motion in case No. S-14-931. Appellant also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, which the district court denied. Appellant filed an appeal from this denial in case No. S-14-1073. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the judgment in case No. S-14-1073, holding that the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; but (2) gave Appellant thirty days in which to pay the statutory docket fee for the appeal docketed as case No. S-14-931. View "State v. Sims" on Justia Law

Appellant entered a plea of no contest to second degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence. Appellant later filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, raising various claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court dismissed Appellant’s postconviction motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that the motion was time barred because it was filed more than one year following the conclusion of Appellant’s direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s argument that the limitation period did not begin to run until the time for him to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court had expired was without merit; and (2) the limitation period was not tolled during a period when Appellant was in federal custody and not in the custody of the State of Nebraska. View "State v. Huggins" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and was found to be a habitual criminal. Defendant later filed an amended motion for postconviction relief, stating that he received ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in various respects. The district court denied Defendant’s claims after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of postconviction relief, holding (1) the State waived the limitation period for filing the postconviction motion under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3001(4) when it failed to raise the defense in the district court; and (2) Defendant’s assignments of error were without merit. View "State v. Crawford" on Justia Law