Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Defendant, a maintenance supervisor at the Nebraska Correctional Center for Women, was convicted of first degree sexual abuse of an inmate. Defendant was sentenced to one to two years’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he made during a polygraph examination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, because while Defendant may have had a subjective belief that he was compelled to take the polygraph examination on threat of the loss of his job, the belief was not objectively reasonable. View "State v. Weichman" on Justia Law

Defendant’s dump truck struck the rear of a car that had stopped or slow due to highway construction. The collision forced the car off the highway, causing it to roll. The driver was killed as a result. Defendant was subsequently convicted of “unlawful act manslaughter” in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-305. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of manslaughter. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to vacate Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the State did not prove that Defendant acted with the mens era required to convict him under section 28-305. View "State v. Carman" on Justia Law

This appeal was the third appeal from a judicial dissociation of four partners from a family agricultural partnership. The partnership had assets consisting primarily of real estate. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether the district court, in recalculating the buyout distributions, correctly implemented the Court’s mandate from the second appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the district court did not err in (1) excluding certain evidence; (2) calculating the buyout distribution on remand; and (3) ordering that such distributions be paid to the clerk of the district court. View "Robertson v. Jacobs Cattle Co." on Justia Law

In 1999, Appellant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Appellant was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction. In 2009, Appellant filed a second motion for postconviction relief, along with a motion for new trial and a motion for writ of error coram nobis, alleging newly discovered evidence. In 2010, Appellant was permitted to file a third amended motion for postconviction relief adding allegations of newly discovered evidence. The district court dismissed the postconviction action pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3003 because the motions for new trial and for writ of error coram nobis were still pending in the district court, concluding that Appellant’s simultaneous motions were an acknowledgement that the postconviction motion was not the exclusive remedy available to him as required by section 29-3003. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Appellant had no possibility of obtaining relief through his motion for new trial and motion for writ of error coram nobis that were filed simultaneously with the postconviction motion, the district court erred in dismissing the postconviction action under section 29-3003. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a commercial dairy operation, sued Defendants, the manufacturer of a microprocessor-based milking control unit and the dealer of the unit, alleging breach of express and implied warranties and negligence and seeking damages for the allegedly negligent and defective installation and programming of its unit. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that improper settings caused the milking units to detach while under significant vacuum, thereby harming the teats of the dairy cows and lowering milk production. The district court granted Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, concluding that Plaintiff did not rebut Defendants’ prima facie case that mechanic components of the milking system maintained by Plaintiff and not part of the microprocessor-based control unit were the proximate cause of the alleged damages. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants, as Plaintiff failed to present evidence from which a jury could determine that the unit was the proximate cause of the alleged injury to Plaintiff’s cows; but (2) reversed the district court’s order granting prejudgment interest on the dealer’s counterclaim, as there was a reasonable controversy over Plaintiff’s right to recover. View "Roskop Dairy, LLC v. GEA Farm Techs., Inc." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant 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. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred when it denied Appellant an evidentiary hearing on three of his claims; but (2) the district court did not otherwise err in its judgment. View "State v. Nolan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for life for the first degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and affirmed his sentences as modified, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to give a choice of evils instruction and in giving an instruction defining premeditation that did not change or contradict the statutory definition; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for first degree murder; (3) the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments were no improper; (4) the district court properly modified Defendant’s invalid oral sentence of life imprisonment by removing erroneous language of “without the possibility of parole” in the written order; (5) the sentences imposed by the district court for Defendant’s remaining convictions were not an abuse of discretion; and (6) the court committed plain error in the manner in which it ordered time served to be credited. View "State v. Custer" on Justia Law

Damian and Tiffany, who were never married, had a child together, Jakai, born in 2009. In 2011, the district court filed a decree awarding joint legal custody to the parties and awarded primary physical custody to Tiffany. The decree also incorporated a previous order requiring Damian to pay child support. Damian subsequently filed a complaint to modify the decree, requesting that he be granted sole legal and physical custody and seeking an order requiring Tiffany to pay child support. Tiffany filed a cross-complaint seeking an increase in Damian’s child support obligation. After a modification hearing, the district court denied a change of custody and increased Damian’s child support obligation. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that a modification of custody was not warranted and adjusted child support. View "State ex rel. Jakai C. v. Tiffany M." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court overruled Defendant’s postconviction motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing and directed the trial court to decide if Defendant’s trial counsel failed to utilize a statement the State’s key witness made to Defendant’s girlfriend to the effect that Defendant was innocent. On remand, the district court again overruled Defendant’s postconviction motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err by (1) excluding certain out-of-court statements on hearsay grounds; and (2) concluding that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Poe" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse that resulted in the death of an infant in her care. Defendant was sentenced to seventy years to life. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that evidence of the infant’s prior injuries while in her care should have been excluded as prior bad acts under Neb. R. Evid. 404. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial on the basis of allowing the admission of the prior injuries, as the prior injuries were inextricably intertwined with the charged crime; (2) there was no misconduct by the prosecutor during closing argument; (3) Defendant’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion; and (4) Defendant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "State v. Cullen" on Justia Law