Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting the State’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for damages under the Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act, holding that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a claim of actual innocence.Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault and attempted third degree sexual assault of a minor. The court of appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions and remanded the cause for a new trial. While the state sought further review, Defendant completed his prison sentence. Defendant subsequently filed this claim alleging that he had been entrapped. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the affirmative defense of entrapment is legally insufficient to show actual innocence as opposed to legal innocence, which is a required element of a wrongful conviction claim. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, holding that Defendant failed sufficiently to allege facts to support a finding of actual innocence. View "Nadeem v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s sentence of forty-five days’ jail time and six months’ probation and revocation of her license for one year connected to her plea of guilty to first-offense driving during revocation. The district court affirmed the sentence. Defendant appealed the revocation portion of her sentence to the Supreme Court. While her appeal was pending, 2017 Neb. Laws, L.B. 263 went into effect, which amended Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-4,108 to allow the sentencing court discretion in ordering a revocation for first-time offenders when the offender has been placed on probation. The Supreme Court remanded the cause with directions to remand it to the county court of resentencing consistent with the amended version of section 60-4,108, holding that the amended version of section 60-4,108 applies retroactively to Defendant’s sentence. View "State v. Huston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of the juvenile court finding allegations of domestic violence to be true, adjudicating Father’s child on those grounds, and ordering Father to undergo evaluations and to participate in an accredited domestic violence program. The court held (1) the juvenile court erred in finding sufficient evidence that Father’s faults or habits placed the children at risk for harm; (2) the district court erred in taking judicial notice of disputed adjudicative facts; (3) the district court erred in failing to provide notice and a hearing for disposition; and (4) the remainder of Father’s arguments were without merit. View "In re Interest of Lilly S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court concluding that the Nebraska Department of Labor’s action intercepting Appellee’s tax refund from the state to partially pay a judgment determining that Appellee had been overpaid for unemployment benefits was barred by the relevant statute of limitations.An appeal tribunal, citing Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-218, concluded that the Department’s action was barred by a four-year statute of limitations. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that there was no time limitation barring the Department’s interception of Appellee’s state income tax refund to offset his unemployment benefit overpayment under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-665(1)(c) and therefore reversed. View "McCoy v. Albin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial, without an evidentiary hearing, of Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. In his motion, Appellant alleged that counsel was ineffective in several respects. After he was denied relief, Appellant appealed, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective in various ways and that the district court erred in denying his motion for postconviction relief without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it determined that Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief did not allege facts that constituted a denial of his constitutional rights and accordingly denied the motion. View "State v. Custer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court decreeing that a residence be repainted from a blue color to an earth tone after the homeowners association sued to enforce restrictive covenants. The Homeowners appealed, arguing that the plain language of the restrictive covenants did not control the color of repainting. The Supreme Court agreed, holding (1) the restrictive covenants at issue were not ambiguous and did not apply to the Homeowners’ repainting of their residence; and (2) the Homeowners did not, therefore, violate any restrictive covenants when they repainted their residence without first seeking and acquiring approval from the developer. View "Estates at Prairie Ridge Homeowners Ass’n v. Korth" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions for unlawful discharge of a firearm and use of a weapon to commit a felony, holding that the district court did not err when it denied Defendant a new trial based on his allegations of juror misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, Defendant alleged juror misconduct relating to jurors’ viewing a mirror image of a surveillance video and prosecutorial misconduct relating to the prosecutor’s comments regarding potential testimony in Defendant’s defense. The Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err when it denied an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s allegations of juror misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct; and (2) did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant’s motion for a new trial on such bases. View "State v. Hairston" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Petitioner’s petition for a writ of prohibition, holding that there was no merit to Petitioner’s assignment of error.Petitioner pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol, first offense, as verbally amended. Prior to sentencing, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of prohibition with the district court asking that the court restrain the county court from sentencing him in the underlying case on the ground that there was an insufficient factual basis to support his plea. Petitioner’s petition for a writ was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to meet the standards for the issuance of a writ of prohibition. View "Zeleny v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied the district court’s order denying Defendant’s second plea in bar asserting a double jeopardy violation. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. On remand, the State filed an amended information again charging Defendant with attempted first degree sexual assault, alleging, for the first time, that the victim was mentally or physically incapable of consenting. The district court denied Defendant’s plea in bar. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, concluding that capacity to consent could not be relitigated as to the attempted first degree sexual assault charge. On remand, the State filed a second amended information alleging only that Defendant attempted to subject the victim to penile penetration without her consent. After Defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to prohibit testimony concerning capacity to consent and the court overruled the motion, Defendant filed a second plea in bar. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the second amended information did not place Defendant at risk of double jeopardy, and therefore, the district court was correct in denying his plea in bar. View "State v. Lavalleur" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of two counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder. The court held (1) the search warrant that authorized police to search for and seize any and all firearms in Defendant’s residence was constitutional because it was sufficiently particular to enable police to know what times they were authorized to search for and seize; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting a recording of a telephone conversation that Defendant made to his ex-girlfriend from jail because the risk of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of those statements. View "State v. Baker" on Justia Law