Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of several counts of first degree sexual assault of a child and sentencing him accordingly. The court held (1) the district court did not err in allowing into evidence hearsay statements of the child victim based on the medical purpose exception to the hearsay rule, and any error in admitting statements under the excited utterance exception was harmless; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Defendant’s sentences; and (4) Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were either not sufficiently presented for review or not able to be reviewed on the record. View "State v. Mora" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Workers’ Compensation Court awarding an injured employee unspecified vocational rehabilitation. A vocational rehabilitation counselor recommended formal training. A vocational rehabilitation specialist, however, “denied” the proposed plan, concluding that formal training was not reasonable or necessary. The compensation court dismissed Employer’s petition to eliminate the formal training requirement and ordered that Employee was entitled to participate in the proposed vocational rehabilitation plan. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the findings of the compensation court were supported by competent evidence, and the plan would comport with the statutory goal to return the injured employee to “suitable employment.” View "Anderson v. EMCOR Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC), which affirmed the valuation of the Washington County Board of Equalization of two parcels of land owned by William Burdess located in Washington County. Both parcels consisted of agricultural land, a homesite, a secondary building, and wasteland. Burdess protested the 2013 through 2016 assessed values of the two parcels, arguing that the wasteland and homesite acres were not properly valued. The TERC affirmed the Board’s decision as to the value of the wasteland and homesite acres. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the TERC did not err in its valuation of the wasteland and in its valuation of the homesite acres associated with the property. View "Burdess v. Washington County Board of Equalization" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court denying Defendants’ motions for absolute discharge. Gerard Bridgeford and Judith Bridgeford were charged with several drug-related crimes. Both defendants eventually filed separate motions for absolute discharge alleging that their statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights had been violated. The district court overruled the motions, reasoning that, under the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4)(b), Defendants permanently waived their statutory right to a speedy trial when they requested a continuance that resulted in a trial date within the statutory six-month period’s being moved to a date outside of the statutory six-month period. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendants both permanently waived their statutory right to a speedy trial; and (2) there was no merit to Defendants’ assertions that the district court erred in failing to grant their motions for absolute discharge on the ground that their constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. View "State v. Bridgeford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court entering judgment for Defendants in this tort action filed by a pilot injured in an airplane crash.Patrick O’Brien, a pilot who was seriously injured when the plane he was flying crashed on approach to an airport, sued the aircraft’s designer and manufacturer and the designer and manufacturer or the aircraft’s pneumatic deicing system, asserting strict liability, negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation claims. The jury returned a general verdict for Defendants. O’Brien appealed, assigning sixty-five claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to any of O’Brien’s assigned errors. View "O'Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the county court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for absolute discharge, holding that thee court was unable to review the trial court’s determination as to whether charges should be dismissed on speedy trial grounds. Citing State v. Williams, 761 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 2009), the Supreme Court ruled that the county court, as part of its ruling on Appellant’s motion for absolute discharge, was required to set forth the calculation of whether the speedy trial clock, as extended by statutorily excludable periods, had expired prior to the commencement of trial and that the trial court in this case did not. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the county court with directions to enter specific findings pursuant to the court’s directive in Williams. View "State v. Lintz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the county court, sitting as a juvenile court, to decline to adopt a case plan and court report recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Instead, the juvenile court ordered certain other directives, including specifically ordering that DHHS update the children’s immunizations. The parents of the children appealed, arguing that the juvenile court was without authority to order DHHS to immunize the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-488(2), the juvenile court was authorized to require DHHS to immunize the children. View "In re Interest of Becka P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals determining that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant to two years’ imprisonment and twelve months’ postrelease supervision connected to Defendant’s no contest plea to a charge of enticement by electronic communication device. On appeal, Defendant claimed that the district court had imposed an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed after clarifying certain standards relating to a sentencing decision under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that there were substantial and compelling reasons why Defendant could not effectively and safely be supervised in the community and when it therefore imposed a sentence of imprisonment rather than probation. View "State v. Dyer" on Justia Law