Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree sexual abuse of an inmate or parolee for having sex with a parolee while he was employed as an officer by the Department of Correctional Services. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because it did not show that he had control over the parolee. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (2) Defendant’s conviction under the relevant statutes did not violate his rights to intimate association and equal protection; and (3) the district court adequately instructed the jury. View "State v. Loyuk" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of second degree murder and one count of use of a firearm to commit a felony. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed this action for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that Defendant did not allege sufficient facts in his motion, if true, would entitle him to postconviction relief, and therefore, he was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims. View "State v. Armendariz" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in death and intentional child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury. The Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court erred by allowing a witness, Defendant’s wife, to testify in the presence of the jury, knowing she would invoke her Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the State to treat the witness as a hostile witness and continue to ask leading questions even after she refused to testify; (3) the trial court erred when it failed to either admonish or instruct the jury not to draw an inference from the witness’s invocation of her right against self-incrimination; and (4) all of the errors, taken together, amounted to reversible error. View "State v. Draper" on Justia Law

In 2007, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. In 2011, Appellant filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court overruled Appellant’s motion in an order issued in 2012. Appellant then filed an amended pro se motion for postconviction relief, again alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court overruled the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider any assignments of error related to the claims that were denied in the 2012 order; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s amended motion without an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Banks" on Justia Law

In 2012, Father and Mother, the biological parents A.H. and S.H, were charged with child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury to A.H. After a consolidated jury trial, the parents were convicted of the lesser-included offense of child abuse. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) receiving expert testimony of A.H.’s psychosocial short stature diagnosis over Father’s Daubert/Schaftersman objection, as the evidence was relevant, and the probative value of the experts’ opinions was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; (2) ruling that the recorded interviews conducted of A.H. and S.H. in 2009 and 2011 were not admissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-803(3) and because they contained hearsay; and (3) receiving evidence relating to the nonaccidental injuries sustained by A.H. in 2005. View "State v. Herrera" on Justia Law

After a jury trial conducted by the county court, Defendant was found guilty of driving while her motor vehicle operator’s license was administratively revoked. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the county court erred in refusing to give an instruction on the defense of entrapment by estoppel. The district court affirmed, concluding that Defendant failed to offer sufficient evidence to warrant an instruction on entrapment by estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the giving of an instruction on the defense of entrapment by estoppel. View "State v. Planck" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of arson, conspiracy, and aiding the consummation of a felony for conspiring with her employee to burn down a house that was owned and insured by her friend. Defendant paid off her employee with household goods. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for aiding in the consummation of a felony. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the record lacked sufficient evidence to show that Defendant intentionally aided another in profiting from the arson. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) by purchasing household goods for her employee as compensation for the arson, Defendant intentionally aided her employee in enjoying the returns or proceeds from his commission of the crime; and (2) therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for aiding the consummation of a felony. View "State v. Hansen" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled no contest to first degree sexual assault of a child. Defendant did not file a direct appeal. Defendant later filed a second amended motion for postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel were ineffective for, among other things, advising him to plead no contest. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Defendant’s claims were procedurally barred due to his failure to file a direct appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant’s claims were not procedurally barred because Defendant’s trial counsel was still serving as counsel during the period in which the direct appeal could have been filed. Remanded. View "State v. Payne" on Justia Law

Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4106(2) provides for retroactive application of its requirement that inmates convicted of a felony sex offense or other specified offense submit a DNA sample before being discharged from confinement. The statute further provides that an inmate will forfeit his past and future good time credit if the inmate refuses to submit a DNA sample. George Shepard was an inmate who was sentenced before the passage of section 29-4106(2) and refused to submit a DNA sample. Facing the impending forfeiture of his good time credit, Shepard filed a complaint for declaratory judgment challenging the application of section 29-4106 as violative of the prohibition against ex post facto laws. The district court declared section 29-4106(2) unconstitutional under the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the federal and state Constitutions as applied to Shepard. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the retroactive application of section 29-4106(2) violates the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. View "Shepard v. Houston" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence, second offense. Defendant appealed, challenging the county court’s determinations that the Nebraska rules of evidence did not apply to the hearing on her motion to suppress and arguing that the county court erred in failing to sustain her suppression motion because the Nebraska State Patrol checkpoint at which was stopped was unconstitutional. The district court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) in a criminal case, the rules of evidence do not apply to suppression hearings; and (2) the county court did not err in determining that the checkpoint was constitutional. View "State v. Piper" on Justia Law