Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his confession and admitting it into evidence at trial because his confession was the product of threats, coercion, and inducements of leniency made by police officers. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) police officers misrepresented to Defendant that felony murder would receive a lesser sentence than premeditated murder, but the misinformation did not overcome Defendant’s will and cause him to confess; and (2) therefore, the confession was voluntary and properly admitted at trial.View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with driving under the influence and with failing to yield the right-of-way. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result an alleged seizure that he asserted was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The county court overruled the motion, concluding that there was no seizure in this case. After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. On appeal, the district court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it affirmed the county court’s order overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress, as, under the facts of this case, Appellant was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes.View "State v. Avey" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of fourth-offense driving under the influence (DUI) and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to three years. In addition, Defendant’s driver’s license was revoked for fifteen years. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress for lack of probable cause to arrest because his vehicle was on public property not open to public access at all relevant times. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress because the arresting officer was justified in approaching the vehicle after observing the driver exit the vehicle and urinate on a tree, which was an unlawful act; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (3) the district court did not err in ruling that two prior convictions could be used for sentence enhancement; (4) the district court did not err in modifying its prior finding to reflect that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions instead of two; and (5) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence.View "State v. Matit" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) with refusal of a chemical test and driving during revocation. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to reopen its case after it rested; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; (4) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant’s out-of-state convictions were valid prior convictions for purposes of sentencing enhancement; (5) the district court did not err in modifying its prior finding to reflect that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions instead of two; and (6) the sentences imposed by the district court were within the statutory limits.View "State v. Bol" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed two postconviction motions, both of which were denied. Appellant also filed for federal habeas relief, which the federal courts denied. This appeal concerned Appellant’s latest motion for postconviction relief, which contained five claims dealing with the method of inflicting the death penalty and the State’s authority to put Appellant to death at all, no matter the method. The district court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s motion failed to state a claim for postconviction relief, either because his claims were without legal basis or because they were not cognizable in postconviction.View "State v. Ryan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony stemming from Defendant’s involvement in a fatal shooting that occurred during a home invasion robbery. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it restricted his cross-examination of three key prosecution witnesses and otherwise violated his constitutional rights of confrontation and due process by impeding his efforts to impeach the witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the cross examination of the witnesses; (2) Defendant’s argument that the State violated his rights by failing to disclose tacit plea agreements between the State and the witnesses was without merit; and (3) evidence of prior home invasion robberies committed by two of the witnesses was not admissible in this case because it was not relevant for any legitimate purpose, including impeachment.View "State v. Patton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony for the death of her husband. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain statements Defendant made while in police custody as volunteered statements. Specifically, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the statements because Defendant had invoked her constitutional right to end the interrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) statements Defendant made from 3:43 to 4 a.m. should have been suppressed because Defendant had invoked her right to remain silent, but the district court’s error was harmless; and (2) statements Defendant made after 4:18 a.m. were not required to be suppressed as involuntary due to Defendant’s earlier invocation of her right to end questioning, as the statements Defendant made after 4:18 a.m. were initiated by Defendant and were not the product of interrogation.View "State v. DeJong" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree assault. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, (2) the sentence was excessive, and (3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, (2) the sentence was not excessive, and (3) Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims were without merit because Defendant made insufficient allegations of fact that would support findings of prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the evidence supported Defendant’s conviction and sentence; and (2) Defendant failed to make sufficiently specific allegations of deficient conduct regarding one of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, but the merits of Defendant’s remaining two ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims could not be reviewed upon the trial record, and therefore, the court of appeals erred in determining that these claims were alleged with insufficient specificity and thus lacked merit. View "State v. Abdullah" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for 300 days and payment of a fine. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not err when, during deliberations, it granted the jury’s request to rehear an eight-minute recording of an investigator’s interview of Defendant, as the evidence was not testimony, and therefore, the heightened procedures for a jury request for “any part of the testimony” pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1116 were not required. View "State v. Vandever" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant moved to suppress the statements he made to police during the murder investigation. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion, and, at a bench trial, the State received evidence of the statements challenged in Defendant’s motion to suppress. The district court found Defendant guilty of both charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in admitting evidence of Defendant’s confession during a pre-Miranda interrogation, but this evidence was cumulative to other admissible evidence, and its admission was harmless error; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Juranek" on Justia Law