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 vacated the order of the district court terminating Defendant’s post-release supervision “unsatisfactorily,” holding that the district court erred in terminating post-release supervision.After finding that Defendant had violated his post-release supervision, the district court decided that it was not appropriate to revoke the supervision and so terminated the post-release supervision altogether. The Supreme Court vacated the sentencing order and remanded the cause for further proceedings, holding (1) under the circumstances of this case, the district court was authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2268(3) to either order a reprimand or warning, intensify supervision or reporting, impose additional conditions of probation, impose custodial sanctions, or extend the term of probation; and (2) because the district court did none of these, the sentencing order was erroneous and resulted in an excessively lenient sentence. View "State v. Kennedy" 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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained when officers, following a traffic stop leading to Defendant’s arrest, searched the vehicle Defendant was driving before impounding it and discovered methamphetamine. Contrary to the sheriff’s office’s policy, a completed inventory sheet did not list the methamphetamine, and the officers failed to list it separately. On appeal, Defendant argued that the search in his case was not a reasonable inventory search because it was not connected in accordance with the policy of the sheriff’s office. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the search was reasonable and that the procedural defects did not raise an inference that the search was conducted to discover evidence. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained when officers, following a traffic stop leading to Defendant’s arrest, searched the vehicle Defendant was driving before impounding it and discovered methamphetamine. Contrary to the sheriff’s office’s policy, a completed inventory sheet did not list the methamphetamine, and the officers failed to list it separately. On appeal, Defendant argued that the search in his case was not a reasonable inventory search because it was not connected in accordance with the policy of the sheriff’s office. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the search was reasonable and that the procedural defects did not raise an inference that the search was conducted to discover evidence. View "State v. Nunez" on Justia Law

In this case involving Father’s child, Fernando, support obligation to his son, the Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the district court recalculating Father’s child support obligation for Fernando.In 2016, Father filed a complaint for a downward modification of his child support obligation to Fernando, originally ordered at $388 per month in 2010. With no tax returns or financial documents in evidence, the district court concluded that Father had not shown a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in his monthly child support obligation to Fernando. The court also determined that Father’s three “after-born” children could not be used to lower his child support obligation to Fernando. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) there was no error in the district court’s determination regarding taxes; but (2) the district court abused its discretion in basing its child support calculation on an incorrect understanding of the birth order of Father’s children relative to Fernando and Father’s support obligations as required by the 2010 order. View "State ex rel. Fernando L. v. Rogelio L." on Justia Law

In this case involving Father’s child, Fernando, support obligation to his son, the Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the district court recalculating Father’s child support obligation for Fernando.In 2016, Father filed a complaint for a downward modification of his child support obligation to Fernando, originally ordered at $388 per month in 2010. With no tax returns or financial documents in evidence, the district court concluded that Father had not shown a material change in circumstances warranting a reduction in his monthly child support obligation to Fernando. The court also determined that Father’s three “after-born” children could not be used to lower his child support obligation to Fernando. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) there was no error in the district court’s determination regarding taxes; but (2) the district court abused its discretion in basing its child support calculation on an incorrect understanding of the birth order of Father’s children relative to Fernando and Father’s support obligations as required by the 2010 order. View "State ex rel. Fernando L. v. Rogelio L." on Justia Law