Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was acquitted of first degree sexual assault and convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to amend the information. Defendant filed a plea in bar on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the plea in bar. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the operative information, after the amendment, violated Defendant’s right to not be subject to double jeopardy because the primary issue had already been litigated and decided in Defendant’s favor. View "State v. Lavalleur" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four felonies arising from his assaults of his former wife. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to confidential communications with his counsel and the right to have appointment of trial counsel without the interference of the prosecutor because a series prosecutors had possession of his confidential trial strategy before his trial. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and vacated Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) when Defendant’s confidential trial strategy was disclosed to prosecuting attorneys, a rebuttable presumption arose that Defendant’s trial was tainted by a Sixth Amendment violation; and (2) the court’s procedures were inadequate to rebut this presumption and ensure that Defendant received a fair trial. View "State v. Bain" on Justia Law

The Omaha Police Officers Association (Union) and the City of Omaha (City) entered into a collective bargaining agreement that was to remain in effect from 2008 until 2013. In 2014, the Union filed a complaint against the City requesting that the district court declare that the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and the City had rolled over to the 2014 calendar year. In support of its complaint, the Union claimed that the City did not timely provide written notice of its intent to negotiate or modify the terms of the contract for 2014. The City, in turn, argued that the Union’s action was barred by the doctrines of waiver and equitable estoppel. The district court granted summary judgment to the Union. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the City failed to establish the required elements of equitable estoppel; (2) the Union did not waive its stated intention to allow the Contract to extend for another year; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the parties to pay their own attorney fees. View "Omaha Police Union Local 101 v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of criminal nonsupport for failing to pay four months of child support. The district court found Defendant was a habitual criminal and enhanced his sentences accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) the district court did not violate the Sixth Amendment when it failed to submit to the jury the issue of whether Defendant’s nonsupport was in violation of any order of the court; (3) there was no error in the court’s failure to require a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense of misdemeanor criminal nonsupport; (4) the State violated Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2221 in by failing to give Defendant three-day notice of the enhancement hearing, but the violation did not require reversal; and (5) Defendant’s sentences were not excessive and were not in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Erpelding" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of third degree sexual assault of a child and three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of other bad acts/uncharged misconduct; (3) the district court did not err in answering the jury’s question about the exact time of the commission of the offense alleged in count one; and (4) there was plain error in the sentences given by the district court, and the sentences are hereby amended by reducing the mandatory minimum sentence that Defendant must serve before he is eligible for good time from twenty-five years imposed by the district court to fifteen years as provided by Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.01(2). View "State v. Samayoa" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the district court erred when it admitted evidence related to prior bad acts and other evidence, and that she was actually innocent. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant’s assignments of error. View "State v. DeJong" on Justia Law

Thirteen-year-old Efrain Ramos-Domingo was struck and killed by a Union Pacific Railroad Company train in Schuyler. Plaintiff, Efrain’s mother, as personal representative of Efrain’s estate, filed a wrongful death action against Union Pacific. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific, concluding that Union Pacific did not breach its standard of care and that Efrain violated his duty to look and listen for the approaching train and to obey the crossing gate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that Union Pacific was not negligent and that Efrain was contributorily negligent sufficient to bar his recovery. Remanded. View "Gonzalez v. Union Pacific R.R. Co." on Justia Law

After Eric Zornes won a lottery, Eric and his wife, Julia, commenced a gifting plan to Andy Wolfe, Jason Wolfe, and Jason Reed. These gifts were structured as loans, and each borrower made a promissory note for his loan, payable to Julia’s and Eric’s revocable trusts jointly. Andy’s note was secured by a deed of trust for real property. Julia and Eric later divorced pursuant to a settlement agreement. When Eric found that Andy’s house had been sold and that Julia had retained the proceeds of the sale, Eric filed this complaint alleging that Julia had converted the proceeds of Andy’s note. Julia counterclaimed for partition of the Jason Wolfe and Jason Reed notes. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Julia, concluding that even if Julia had converted the proceeds, the settlement agreement operated as an accord and satisfaction. The court also ordered partition of the promissory notes for Jason Wolfe’s and Jason Reed’s loans. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Eric was not entitled to summary judgment on his conversion claim; (2) the settlement agreement did not constitute an accord and satisfaction; and (3) the lower court erred in the method by which it partitioned the Jason Wolfe and Jason Reed notes. View "Zornes v. Zornes" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree sexual assault. Defendant appealed, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s alleged breach of the plea agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State materially breached the plea agreement but that the Court could not resolve Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the record did not show if Defendant’s trial counsel had a strategic reason for not objecting. Thereafter, Defendant moved for postconviction relief. After an evidentiary hearing, the postconviction court overruled the motion, concluding that the State’s breach of the plea agreement had not made the proceeding “fundamentally unfair” and that an objection would have “no merit.” The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to the State’s material breach of the plea agreement. Remanded. View "State v. Sidzyik" on Justia Law

The decedent in this case died in 2011. The contestants of her will objected to the petition to admit to probate either the decedent’s February 2011 will or her August 2001 will, alleging that the wills were invalid because the decedent lacked testamentary capacity and because the devises were the result of undue influence. After a trial, the jury found that the 2011 will was valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly refused to instruct the jury regarding a “presumption of undue influence”; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion responding to a jury question or in admitting, in part, a video of the execution of the 2001 will. View "In re Estate of Clinger" on Justia Law