Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In the early 1990âs, a jury found A.M. guilty of first-degree sexual assault, and the court sentenced him to prison. Shortly before his release in 2008, the State filed a petition under the Sex Offender Commitment Act (SOCA) to have A.M. declared a dangerous sex offender and committed to inpatient care. The Mental Health Board (Board) found by clear and convincing evidence that A.M. was a dangerous sex offender but that neither voluntary hospitalization nor other treatment alternatives would prevent him from reoffending. A.M. appealed the Boardâs decision to the district court, âasserting a litany of constitutional and evidentiary errors.â The district court rejected A.M.âs claims, and affirmed the Boardâs decision to have A.M. committed. After a thorough review of the Boardâs deliberations and the district courtâs record, the Supreme Court found many of A.M.âs issues raised on appeal meritless. However, the Court remanded the case to the Board for further evidentiary findings for the record.

Joseph (Joe) Mandolfo sued his brother Mario and American National Bank (ANB). At one time, Joe owned several businesses, some of which had accounts with ANB. After his brother Mario lost his job as a teacher, Joe hired Mario to work for him. Joe alleged that Mario had, with the help of ANB, wrongfully deposited checks intended for Joeâs business, into his own account. From 1995 until 2000, Joe contended that Mario embezzled about $1.2 million. The district court granted summary judgment to Joe against Mario. The court however, also granted summary judgment to ANB, concluding that a statute of limitations barred Joeâs claims against the bank. Joe appealed the grant of summary judgment to the bank. The Supreme Court concluded that Joeâs claims were governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, and as a result, were subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Joe did not discover Marioâs misappropriations until 2003. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision to dismiss Joeâs claims against the bank as untimely.

In 2006, Appellant-Defendant Anthony Riley was convicted in the district court for manslaughter and attempted second degree murder stemming from the drive-by shooting that ended with one death and three others injured. Prior to trial, the State filed several motions in limine, seeking to prevent Defendant from discussing at voir dire, in his opening statement, or closing argument, a polygraph test police had administered to one of the Stateâs witnesses. Defendantâs defense strategy focused on proving that someone else in the car, not Defendant, had fired the shots. When Defendant cross-examined one of the Stateâs witnesses, the witness mentioned he had taken a polygraph test. Defendant motioned for a mistrial, but the trial court simply struck mention of the test and ordered the jury to disregard it. The jury returned guilty verdicts for manslaughter and attempted second degree murder. Defendant moved for a new trial. The court overruled the motion and sentenced Defendant to twenty years for manslaughter, and eight to fifteen years on each attempted murder count. The Supreme Court found that Defendantâs claim that he was not the shooter, and the inadvertent mention of the polygraph by the Stateâs witness were prejudicial to Defendant, and that the district court should have granted Defendantâs motion for a mistrial. The Court reversed the lower courtâs decisions and remanded the case for a new trial.

Appellant Jason Golka was convicted in the district court for Sarpy County of two counts of first degree murder pursuant to a guilty plea. Appellant was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of life imprisonment âwithout parole." Finding error in the sentence, the matter was remanded and Appellant was re-sentenced to âtwo life terms to be served consecutively.â Appellant did not appeal the re-sentencing at the trial court level, but brought an appeal to the Supreme Court seeking the sentence be vacated. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellant argued he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to advise him of certain defenses, for advising him to enter a plea agreement, and for not assigning error to the courtsâ eventual disposition of his case. After reviewing the record and finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courtsâ decisions and dismissed the appeal.