Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the State did not have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of his vehicle based on the odor of marijuana emanating from his person or on a police officer’s alleged knowledge that there were needles used for methamphetamine in Defendant’s vehicle. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) standing alone, the fact that Defendant smelled of burnt marijuana did not provide probable cause to search Defendant’s vehicle; and (2) the officer’s alleged knowledge of the needles in Defendant’s car was based solely on testimony that should be disregarded as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals should have given deference to the district court’s finding of fact that the officer was told about the needles prior to the search; and (2) probable cause existed for the search based on the combined facts that Defendant smelled of burnt marijuana and that he admitted prior to the search of his vehicle to having needles in the vehicle. View "State v. Dalland" on Justia Law

Appellee injured his back while working for Appellant. The original workers’ compensation judge found that Appellee was permanently and totally disabled. On appeal, a three-judge review panel concluded it could not tell whether the judge had considered the presumption of correctness afforded to a vocational rehabilitation specialist’s opinion of Appellee’s disability and remanded the cause. The court of appeals affirmed. On remand, the case was assigned to a new trial judge, who ruled that Appellee was permanently and totally disabled without holding an evidentiary hearing, finding that Appellee had rebutted the presumption afforded to the specialist’s opinion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that new judge’s ruling on the issues without a new evidentiary hearing violated Appellee’s right to due process because the witnesses’ credibility was relevant to the issues presented at trial. View "Liljestrand v. Dell Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

Rick Wheeler had two liability insurance policies with American Family Mutual Insurance Company. Both Rick and his son Ryan were insureds under the policies. Both policies provided personal liability coverage and included exclusions for abuse and intentional injury. Both policies also contained a severability clause, which required that the insurance be applied separately to each insured. Joshua and Maren McCrary sued Rick and Ryan for Ryan’s alleged sexual assault of the McCrarys’ minor daughter. American Family filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a judgment that its policies did not provide liability coverage to Rick. The district court granted summary judgment to American Family. At issue on appeal was whether the severability clause changed the effect of, or rendered ambiguous, the exclusions that would otherwise bar coverage for Rick. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the severability clause did not affect the unambiguous language of the policies’ exclusions, which barred coverage for Rick. View "Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 2008 Appellant was convicted of attempted third degree sexual assault of a child, a Class I misdemeanor. In 2011, Appellant applied for a permit to carry a concealed handgun.The Nebraska State Patrol denied Appellant’s application pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2433(5), which provides that a permit will be denied an applicant convicted a “misdemeanor crime of violence” within the ten years preceding the date of application. On appeal, Appellant contended that his conviction for attempted third degree sexual assault of a child was not a “crime of violence” within the meaning of section 69-2433(5). The district court affirmed the State Patrol’s denial of Appellant’s application for a concealed handgun permit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court and State Patrol did not err in finding that Appellant’s conviction of attempted third degree sexual assault of a child was a crime of violence under section 69-2433(5) and disqualified him from receiving a concealed handgun permit. View "Underwood v. Neb. State Patrol" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of abuse of a vulnerable adult based on the financial exploitation of a relative and sentenced to three years’ probation. The district court subsequently revoked Defendant’s probation and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment, finding that Defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by committing assault. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred when it received into evidence hearsay statements of an unavailable witness at the probation revocation hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Sixth Amendment confrontation guarantee and Crawford v. Washington rights do not apply to probation revocation proceedings because probation revocation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions, but a probationer is entitled to due process and an opportunity to controvert the evidence against him or her; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to revoke Defendant's probation. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of several felonies for which he was serving probation. When Defendant’s probation officer conducted an investigation of Defendant's residence, the officer discovered an extensive knife and sword collection lining the walls of Defendant’s bedroom. After a subsequent search of Defendant’s residence by law enforcement officers, Defendant was charged with and convicted of violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1206, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and sentenced to two years’ probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant lacked standing to assert that section 28-1206 was vague because his conduct clearly violated the statute; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (3) the district court did not err in not instructing the jury on the offense of entrapment; (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial; and (5) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with assault while being incarcerated and of being a habitual criminal. Approximately one year later, Defendant filed his first motion to discharge on speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a second motion to discharge on speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion, concluding that the State had twenty-eight days remaining to bring Defendant to trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The State petitioned for further review, contending that additional days should be excluded from the speedy trial calculation because of Defendant’s allegedly frivolous motion to discharge. The Supreme Court held that Defendant waived his statutory right to a speedy trial by filing unsuccessful motions to discharge that necessitated continuing trial beyond the statutory six-month period. View "State v. Mortensen" on Justia Law

Appellants obtained a valid default judgment against Dale and Vicki Jensen. Appellant had a summons and order of garnishment in aid of execution issued to Pioneer Ventures, LLC. Pioneer Ventures timely filed its answers to Appellants’ interrogatories with the clerk of court. Appellants were not served with the answers but independently learned of the answers approximately one week later. Appellants subsequently filed an objection to the answers to interrogatories. The trial court ruled that Appellants’ objection was untimely because it was filed more than twenty days after Pioneer Ventures had filed its answers. On appeal, Appellants argued that the trial court erred by (1) ruling that the twenty-day time limit began to run from when the answer was filed and not when Appellants received actual notice, and (2) not requiring service of Pioneer Venture’s answers upon Appellants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the garnishment statutes do not require the garnishee to serve or give notice to the garnishor of the interrogatory answers. View "ML Manager, LLC v. Jensen" on Justia Law

Appellant retained Attorney to represent him in several actions, including an action to obtain disability benefits from the city of Omaha. Appellant’s application for benefits was denied. Before an appeal or request for a rehearing were filed, Appellant terminated his relationship with Attorney. Appellant then filed suit against Attorney for professional malpractice. The district court granted Attorney's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Appellant never directed Attorney to file an appeal and that Attorney had properly preserved the record such that an appeal would have been possible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant’s contention that Attorney failed to investigate and preserve the record for appellate purposes was without merit; (2) Appellant failed to produce evidence to show Attorney's actions in failing to file an appeal constituted neglect or that Appellant was harmed; and (3) the district court did not err in refusing to allow expert testimony on the issue of whether Attorney committed malpractice. View "Harris v. O'Connor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty on the charge of felony murder; (2) the district court did not err in sustaining the State’s motion in limine and excluding evidence of prior unlawful conduct by a key witness; and (3) the district court did not err when it gave a flight instruction to the jury. View "State v. Ely" on Justia Law