Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that Defendant’s assignments of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by not admitting photographs he claimed supported his defense that another individual committed the murders and that his collective sentence of ninety to 140 years’ imprisonment was the functional equivalent of a sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the photographs by reasoning that the small amount of relevance was outweighed by Neb. Evid. R. 403; and (2) Defendant, who was a juvenile at the time the crimes were committed, received the protections required by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). View "State v. Trotter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of two counts of first degree murder and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that Defendant’s assignments of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by not admitting photographs he claimed supported his defense that another individual committed the murders and that his collective sentence of ninety to 140 years’ imprisonment was the functional equivalent of a sentence of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the photographs by reasoning that the small amount of relevance was outweighed by Neb. Evid. R. 403; and (2) Defendant, who was a juvenile at the time the crimes were committed, received the protections required by Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). View "State v. Trotter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the disposition of the juvenile court that ordered Juvenile placed in a residential group home, holding that the out-of-home placement order complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-251.01(7).Section 43-251.01(7) requires that a juvenile not be placed out of his or her home as a dispositional order unless all available community-based resources have been exhausted and there is a significant risk of harm to the juvenile or community by maintaining the juvenile in the home. Here, the juvenile court, in a written disposition order, placed Juvenile on probation for two years and ordered her to reside at a Boys Town group home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the out-of-home placement complied with the requirements of the statute. View "In re Interest of Keyanna R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the disposition of the juvenile court that ordered Juvenile placed in a residential group home, holding that the out-of-home placement order complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-251.01(7).Section 43-251.01(7) requires that a juvenile not be placed out of his or her home as a dispositional order unless all available community-based resources have been exhausted and there is a significant risk of harm to the juvenile or community by maintaining the juvenile in the home. Here, the juvenile court, in a written disposition order, ordered Juvenile placed at Boys Town group home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the out-of-home placement complied with the requirements of the statute. View "In re Interest of Nicholas K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the disposition of the juvenile court that ordered Juvenile placed in a residential group home, holding that the out-of-home placement order complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-251.01(7).Section 43-251.01(7) requires that a juvenile not be placed out of his or her home as a dispositional order unless all available community-based resources have been exhausted and there is a significant risk of harm to the juvenile or community by maintaining the juvenile in the home. Here, the juvenile court, in a written disposition order, ordered Juvenile placed at Boys Town group home. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the out-of-home placement complied with the requirements of the statute. View "In re Interest of Nicholas K." on Justia Law

Two interim juvenile court orders, one dictating an out-of-home placement and the other continuing it, complied with the statutory requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-251.01(7)(a) and (b).After in-home services proved ineffective, the juvenile court ordered Juvenile’s placement at Omaha Home for Boys. The court then continued this interim order and continued the dispositional hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court made the correct statutory findings that all community-based resources had been exhausted and that maintaining Juvenile in his home presented a significant risk of harm to him or the community. View "In re Interest of Dana H." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal brought by a juvenile challenging an order of the juvenile court ordering that he be removed from his family home and placed in Boys Town, holding that the juvenile court’s order was not a final order.On appeal, the juvenile argued that there was insufficient evidence for the juvenile court to find that, under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-251.01(7), all community-based resources had been exhausted and that maintaining him in his home presented a significant risk of harm to him or the community. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order appealed from did not substantially affect the juvenile’s right to home placement and was thus not a final order under Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1902(2). View "In re Interest of Zachary B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the juvenile court adjudicating Appellant for violating a Lincoln city ordinance prohibiting disturbing the peace. The juvenile court found that the State had proved the allegations in the petition beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically, that Appellant knowingly or intentionally disturbed the peace of a high school security officer by engaging in fighting. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a school security officer and campus supervisor may be an appropriate victim of disturbing the peace; and (2) the evidence adduced sufficiently supported the juvenile court’s adjudication. View "In re Interest of Elainna R." on Justia Law

In 2001, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Appellant was sixteen years old when he committed the crimes leading to his convictions. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. In 2013, Appellant filed a motion for postconviction relief seeking resentencing on his murder conviction pursuant to Miller v. Alabama. The district court granted postconviction relief. After a resentencing hearing, Appellant was sentenced to ninety to ninety years’ imprisonment on the first degree murder conviction. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court imposed an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence within the statutory limits and supported by the record, and there was no merit to Appellant’s claim that his sentence was excessive. View "State v. Garza" on Justia Law

In 1987, Defendant murdered his twelve-year-old sister. Defendant was fourteen years old at the time of the murder. Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2013, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that his sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. Alabama. The district court vacated Defendant’s life sentence, finding that the sentence was within the parameters of the holding in Miller, that the rule in Miller applies retroactively, and that Defendant was therefore entitled to postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the relevant sentencing scheme mandated life imprisonment without the possibility for parole, the district court was bound by Miller. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Thieszen" on Justia Law