Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to multiple convictions of felon in possession of a firearm and attempted felon in possession of a firearm. The only evidence offered by Defendant’s attorney during the sentencing hearing was a local newspaper in which the police chief described Defendant as a hunting enthusiast who was not a threat to the community. The district court refused to enter the article into evidence, noting that the statement would “essentially be hearsay.” Defendant appealed from his sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err (1) in refusing to consider the newspaper article; and (2) in failing to grant Defendant credit for 369 days previously served within in federal custody on a federal sentence. View "State v. Hunnel" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Witnesses for the State testified that Defendant intentionally withheld air from the testing device, resulting in a sample size that the device labeled “Deficient Sample, Incomplete Test.” Nevertheless, the printout from the device reported a breath alcohol content of .218. The jury found Defendant guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and also found that his breath alcohol content was .15 or greater. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the results of a chemical test for which the motorist gives a “deficient” sample are inadmissible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) evidence of a chemical breath test that records a deficient sample is admissible if the State lays sufficient foundation; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. View "State v. McIntyre" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with the sexual assault of two girls. During trial, it was revealed that defense witnesses had viewed forensic interviews of the victims. The State moved to strike the entire testimony of one defense witness and to exclude any testimony from two other defense witnesses, asserting that defense counsel had violated the court discovery order and Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1926, the statute pertaining to victim interviews. Defense counsel responded that he did not have any objection to the State’s motion. The court granted the State’s motion. The jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of all charges. Thereafter, Defendant brought a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating and advising Defendant to stipulate to allow the witness testimony to be stricken. The postconviction court vacated Defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that Defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was prejudiced by defense counsel’s deficient conduct of agreeing with the State to strike and exclude defense witnesses. View "State v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to “not less than life and not more than life imprisonment.” Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in sentencing her to a term of life-to-life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s life-to-life sentence is permissible because a term of life imprisonment is a term of years within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204; and (2) Defendant’s sentence does not violate Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-105, 28-304(2), and 29-2204. View "State v. Casterline" on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with two felony counts of theft by deception in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-512. The district court sustained Defendant’s motion to quash the information, concluding that the State should have aggregated all of the alleged incidents into a single count of theft by deception rather than charging two separate counts. The court then gave the State seven days to file an amended information. Instead of filing an amended information, the State filed an application to docket error proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the State may appeal an order which sustained a motion to quash but allowed the State time to file an amended information; and (2) because there was no final order for purposes of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2315.01, the State may not take an appeal. View "State v. Warner" on Justia Law

In 1997, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pled no contest to three counts of attempted first degree assault and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. In 2013, Appellant filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court for Douglas County, alleging that he was entitled to habeas relief because the information on which he was convicted incorrectly identified the victim on counts I and II. The district court denied Appellant’s petition, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition because Appellant was currently serving his incarceration at the penitentiary in Lincoln, Nebraska, which was not in Douglas County. The Supreme Court affirmed but on other grounds, holding (1) the district court was not deprived of jurisdiction by the fact that Appellant was not confined within Douglas County or because Appellant failed to attach a copy of the commitment order to his petition; but (2) Appellant did not raise an issue that could be addressed in a writ of habeas corpus proceeding in Nebraska. View "O'Neal v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of unlawful possession of four or more financial transaction devices and unlawful circulation of financial transaction devices in the first degree. Appellant was sentenced as a habitual criminal to two terms of imprisonment, the sentences to run consecutively. The Court of Appeals affirmed on direct appeal. After unsuccessfully seeking postconviction relief, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his convictions and sentences were void because the trial court made the habitual criminal determination utilizing the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” rather than the standard of “by a preponderance of the evidence.” Appellant then filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The district court denied Appellant’s motion, concluding that Appellant’s habeas corpus petition was frivolous. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding that the legal position asserted in Appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was frivolous. View "Gray v. Kenney" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions, holding (1) Appellant waived any claimed error regarding the admission of autopsy photographs of the victim’s injuries; (2) the trial court did not err in overruling Appellant’s Batson challenge to the State’s use of a peremptory strike against the only African-American prospective juror; and (3) the trial court erred in admitting evidence of irrelevant DNA testing results, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and three counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to three life sentences and seventy-five to ninety years’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, in part, that the district court abused its discretion in overruling Defendant’s two motions for mistrial when one witness referenced Defendant’s prior conviction and another witness’s testimony allegedly differed from her deposition testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendants’ motion for mistrial, as the mention of Defendant’s prior conviction did not influence the jury to such a degree that the entire outcome of the case was tainted, and there was no evidence that a discovery violation occurred; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to find Defendant guilty of all charges beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Davis" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child. Defendant was sentenced to fifteen to twenty-five years imprisonment on each count with two counts to be served consecutively and the third to be served concurrently with the other two. The court of appeals remanded the cause after finding plain error in the sentencing and ordered the district court to resentence Defendant’s convictions to be served consecutively to each other. The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s resentencing order and remanded with directions to reinstate the original sentences imposed by the district court, holding that it was not plain error for the district court to sentence Defendant concurrently for his third conviction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.01. View "State v. Lantz" on Justia Law