Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of kidnapping in the disappearance of nine-year-old Jill Cutshall. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. In 1992, The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence. In 2012, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging that he had recently learned of the existence of newly discovered evidence - a diary in which was detailed the abduction, rape and murder of Cutshall. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in finding that Defendant's motion was procedurally barred because his motion affirmatively showed on its face that the ground for relief could not have been asserted at the time of the prior postconviction proceedings; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that Defendant did not allege facts sufficient to necessitate an evidentiary hearing; and (3) because Defendant raised no justiciable issue of law or fact, the district court did not err in declining to appoint counsel. View "State v. Phelps" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery and kidnapping and sentenced to life imprisonment for kidnapping. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present alibi evidence in the form of a witness's testimony. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's denial of Defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing regarding trial counsel's alleged ineffectiveness in failing to present the witness's alibi testimony; and (2) affirmed in all other respects. Remanded. View "State v. Branch" on Justia Law

Eric and Gail Thacker sought to homeschool their children but did not obtain state recognition of their homeschool until October 2011. The Thackers did not enroll their five children in any legally recognized school before then. The county court convicted Eric and Gail individually of five misdemeanor counts for violating Nebraska's compulsory education statute. The district court reversed, contending that Neb. Rev. Stat. 79-201 required the Thackers to ensure that their children attended a legally recognized school every day of that school's calendar year until their request to operate a homeschool became effective. The Supreme Court overruled the State's exceptions, holding that section 79-201 did not criminalize the Thackers' failure to enroll their children in a legally recognized school pending the State's recognition of their homeschool. Remanded with instructions for the county court to vacate the convictions and sentences. View "State v. Thacker" on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to a charge of fraudulently obtaining public assistance benefits and was sentenced to five years' probation. Defendant later filed a motion to withdraw her plea, alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her counsel had not told her that her conviction would result in automatic deportation. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Defendant's motion, concluding that Defendant failed to demonstrate that her counsel's deficient performance prejudiced her. The Supreme Court affirmed. After the State's motion for rehearing was granted, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Chaidez v. U.S., which held that the holding in Padilla v. Kentucky requiring defense counsel to advise clients of the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea, did not apply retroactively to a defendant whose conviction became final before Padilla was decided. Based on Chaidez, the Supreme Court withdrew its previous opinion, substituted this opinion, and dismissed Defendant's appeal, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Defendant's motion where Defendant's sole remedy was to file for postconviction relief pursuant to the Nebraska Postconviction Act. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Without permission and in violation of school policy, a high school student retrieved a wallet and sweatshirt from his pickup truck, which was parked on a public street across from the school. When the student returned to school grounds, the assistant principal searched the student's person, backpack, and wallet, only to discover a cellular telephone and a set of keys. Without the student's consent, the assistant principal then searched the student's truck and found drug paraphernalia. The student was suspended for nineteen days. The school board upheld the suspension. The district court reversed the decision of the board and ordered the suspension and offenses expunged from the student's school record, holding that the search of the truck violated the Fourth Amendment, as the assistant principal lacked probable cause to expand the search to the truck. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the search of the student's truck violated the student's right to be free from unreasonable searches. View "J.P. v. Millard Pub. Schs." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, with intent to distribute. The jury found the quantity of the mixture containing cocaine was 10.25 grams. Defendant appealed, contending that there was insufficient foundation regarding the accuracy of a scale used to weigh the cocaine in order to admit evidence of the weight. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred when it admitted testimony regarding the weight of the cocaine without sufficient foundation regarding the accuracy of the scale, and the error was not harmless. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Richardson" on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer pulled over Defendant's vehicle because it momentarily crossed over the divider line between two eastbound lines on an interstate. Because of suspicions he developed while issuing a warning ticket for the alleged traffic violation, the officer searched the vehicle and discovered cocaine in the trunk. Defendant was charged with unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, which the district court overruled. The court subsequently convicted Defendant as charged. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) evidence that Defendant's vehicle momentarily crossed a lane divider line, without more, did not establish a statutory violation and thereby provide probable cause for a traffic stop; and (2) because the officer admitted that this "happens all the time" and failed to distinguish how this case differed from normal behavior, there was not reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to support an investigatory stop. Remanded. View "State v. Au" on Justia Law

Appellant sued Doctor for medical malpractice. After a jury trial, the district court ruled in favor of Doctor. During trial, the court permitted Doctor to question one of Appellant's treating physicians about his opinion of Doctor's performance in treating Appellant for hip pain even though neither party had designated the treating physician as an expert. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court erroneously admitted the disputed testimony about the standard of care but that the error was harmless because the parties' designated experts provided similar evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the trial court's ruling denied Appellant any opportunity to challenge the presumptive validity and weight that a jury would have given to Appellant's own treating physician testifying as an expert against him; and (2) therefore, the error was prejudicial. Remanded for a new trial. View "Simon v. Drake" on Justia Law

Following a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, first degree assault, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the first degree murder conviction and the conviction on the charge of being a felon in possession of a deadly weapon; (2) any error with respect to the jury instructions was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) the State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct; (4) Defendant received effective assistance of counsel at trial; (5) the district court did not err in finding that one of the exhibits used at trial was sufficient to establish a prior felony conviction; and (6) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant, but the court plainly erred in the allocation of credit for time served, and therefore, Defendant's sentences were modified by ordering that the credit for time served be applied against the sentence for first degree assault. View "State v. Watt" on Justia Law

In 2002, the Legislature enacted a statute requiring judges, prior to accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, to administer a specific advisement regarding possible consequences of the conviction for persons who are not citizens of the United States. At issue in this appeal was whether the court may deny a motion to set aside a plea under this statute upon proof that a defendant who was not given the required advisement was nevertheless aware of the immigration consequences of the plea and resulting conviction. Here Defendant pled no contest to attempted sexual assault and kidnapping and later filed a motion to withdraw his pleas for the district court's failure to give him the required advisement. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the statute on its face requires that all noncitizens accused of a crime must be given the advisement; (2) Defendant established he was not given the required statutory advisement regarding immigration consequences of conviction and actually faced a consequence as a result of his convictions; and (3) Defendant was entitled to have his judgments of conviction vacated and to withdraw his pleas and enter pleas of not guilty. Remanded. View "State v. Medina-Liborio" on Justia Law