Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Aldrick Scott was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and tampering with physical evidence after he shot and killed his former girlfriend, Cari Allen, in her home, buried her body, and disposed of other evidence. Scott claimed self-defense, stating that Allen had pulled a gun on him during an argument. However, evidence showed Scott had driven from Topeka to Omaha, where Allen lived, and waited outside her house before the incident. Scott's actions after the shooting, including disposing of Allen's body and other evidence, and fleeing to Belize, were also presented at trial.The District Court for Douglas County denied Scott's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his arrest and search by Belizean police, which included his cell phone. Scott argued that his arrest and search violated Belizean law and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belize, and that the evidence should be excluded under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that U.S. law enforcement did not substantially participate in Scott's arrest and search, and thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the involvement of U.S. law enforcement did not amount to a joint venture with Belizean police, and thus, the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule did not apply. The court also found that any error in admitting the cell phone evidence was harmless, as it was cumulative of Scott's own testimony. Additionally, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Scott guilty of all charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed Scott's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Scott" on Justia Law

A 15-year-old male was charged with a Class II felony for allegedly sexually assaulting a 14-year-old female at a high school in Omaha, Nebraska. The incident was reported by the victim, L.S., who stated that the assault occurred within the school premises. Video footage and interviews with the involved parties, including the accused, Jeremiah T., and a witness, G.G., were part of the evidence. L.S. claimed that Jeremiah forcibly assaulted her despite her resistance, while Jeremiah contended that the encounter was consensual. G.G.'s involvement as a lookout was also scrutinized.The district court overruled Jeremiah's motion to transfer the case to juvenile court, citing concerns about public safety and the severity of the offense. The court found that the nature of the crime and the degree of violence involved suggested that Jeremiah might need supervision beyond the age of 19, which the juvenile court could not provide. The court also noted that while Jeremiah was amenable to treatment, the timeline for effective rehabilitation within the juvenile system was uncertain.The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, arguing that the lower court abused its discretion. The appellate court emphasized that the evidence favored Jeremiah's rehabilitation within the juvenile system and that the State did not sufficiently prove a sound basis for retaining the case in adult court. The Court of Appeals highlighted the availability of appropriate services in the juvenile system and questioned the district court's interpretation of the evidence.Upon further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals had improperly reweighed the evidence and failed to apply the correct standard of review. The Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining the case in adult court, as its decision was supported by appropriate evidence and considerations of public safety. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case with directions to affirm the district court's order. View "State v. Jeremiah T." on Justia Law

Megan E. Hawk and David P. Hawk were involved in a marital dissolution action where the district court ordered David to pay Megan a cash equalization payment of nearly $3 million in eight annual installments, with interest accruing at a rate of 7.264% per annum. Megan filed a motion to alter or amend the decree, which the court partially granted, specifying that each installment would include accrued interest. Megan later filed a motion requesting the court to clarify that payments be made through the court clerk and to attach an amortization schedule.The district court for Douglas County initially modified the decree to specify the payment schedule and interest accrual. After the court's term ended, Megan filed another motion, which the court treated as a request to alter or amend the judgment rather than a nunc pro tunc order. The court held a hearing and clarified that interest would start accruing from the date the first payment was due, not from the date of the decree. The court also directed the court clerk to record the judgment and calculate the balance and interest.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and determined that the district court had the inherent power to modify its judgment within the term, as extended by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2001(1). The court held that the rights of a party seeking relief under this statute become fixed at the time the motion is filed, even if the disposition occurs after the term ends. The court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to modify the interest accrual date and affirmed the order. View "Hawk v. Hawk" on Justia Law

A Nebraska county (Hayes) sought reimbursement from a neighboring county (Frontier) for half the cost of replacing a bridge under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-827 et seq. Hayes claimed the bridge was on a county line road, thus requiring shared expenses. Frontier's board of commissioners denied the claim, arguing the bridge was not on a county line road and that Frontier was not equally interested in the bridge. Hayes then filed a petition in error in the district court, seeking review of the board's decision.The district court reviewed the case and found that Hayes had not provided sufficient evidence to support its claim. Specifically, the court noted that Hayes did not request an evidentiary hearing before the Frontier Board, resulting in a lack of formal proof regarding the bridge's location. The court concluded that the only evidence in the record was Hayes' claim and its attachments, which were insufficient to establish the bridge's location as required by § 39-827. Consequently, the district court denied and dismissed Hayes' petition in error.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether the Frontier Board acted within its jurisdiction and whether its decision was supported by sufficient relevant evidence. The court found that Hayes failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate that the bridge was on a county line road as defined by § 39-1403. The court also noted that the Road Agreement between Hayes and Frontier did not conclusively establish the bridge's location for the purposes of the bridge statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified the disposition from "denied and dismissed" to "affirmed." View "County of Hayes v. County of Frontier" on Justia Law

Aubrey C. Trail filed a motion for postconviction relief nearly 14 months after the conclusion of his direct appeal. Trail had previously been found guilty of first-degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and was sentenced to death by a three-judge panel. Trail's direct appeal was unsuccessful, and he did not apply for a stay or file a motion for rehearing. After the mandate issued, Trail requested the appointment of postconviction counsel, which was eventually granted. However, due to various delays, including the withdrawal and replacement of postconviction counsel, Trail filed his motion for postconviction relief on February 14, 2024.The district court for Saline County denied Trail's motion without a hearing, finding it untimely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(a), which requires postconviction motions to be filed within one year of the conclusion of a direct appeal. The court noted that Trail did not raise any arguments regarding the timeliness of his motion in response to the State's assertion that it was time barred.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the one-year limitation period for filing postconviction motions under § 29-3001(4) is not subject to equitable tolling, even in capital cases. The court also found that Trail did not demonstrate that an impediment created by state action prevented him from filing his motion within the statutory period. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate Trail's due process rights by denying the motion as time barred without providing an additional opportunity for Trail to present his timeliness arguments. View "State v. Trail" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with two counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. During a search of his residence by his probation officer, alcohol and a loaded rifle were found, violating his probation conditions. The probation officer also found an empty handgun box, and the defendant gave conflicting accounts of the handgun's location. Later, the defendant's girlfriend and her mother, along with the defendant's son, searched the house and found a locked case believed to contain the handgun. They handed the case to a law enforcement officer, who later obtained a warrant to open it, confirming it contained the handgun.The district court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the handgun, finding that the officer did not conduct a search but merely accepted the case from private individuals. The court also found that the officer entered the residence with consent. The defendant was found guilty of possessing the handgun but acquitted of possessing the rifle.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, agreeing that the officer entered the residence with consent and that the recovery of the locked case was not the result of a search by law enforcement. The court also found that any error in overruling the motion to suppress was harmless because the defendant did not object to the testimony and evidence presented at trial.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the Fourth Amendment was not violated because the search that discovered the locked case was conducted by private individuals who were not acting as government agents. The court concluded that the officer's acceptance of the case did not constitute a search and that the subsequent warrant to open the case was valid. View "State v. Langley" on Justia Law

Abby G. Poitier, now known as Abby G. Cullins, filed a complaint in the district court for Douglas County to modify a previously entered paternity decree, seeking increased parenting time with her child, S.B. On the day of the trial, she sought to voluntarily dismiss her complaint. The trial court granted the dismissal without conditions and proceeded to trial on the counterclaim filed by Brian P. Beatty, which included a request for attorney fees. Although Brian was not successful on his counterclaim, the district court awarded him a portion of his attorney fees, finding Abby's complaint to be frivolous and interposed solely for delay or harassment.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order. The appellate court reasoned that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-603, the district court retained jurisdiction to consider Brian's counterclaim for attorney fees even after Abby dismissed her complaint. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the district court's award of attorney fees, noting that Abby had not made efforts to have a relationship with S.B. since 2019 and had dismissed her complaint on the day of trial without notice.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court agreed that the district court had jurisdiction to consider Brian's counterclaim for attorney fees and that the award of $1,500 in attorney fees was reasonable. The court found that Abby's actions were frivolous and interposed for delay or harassment, supporting the lower courts' decisions. View "Beatty v. Poitier" on Justia Law

The appellants, Jeffery A. Olson and Dianne M. Dowding, challenged the orders of the district court for Otoe County, which established a prescriptive easement in favor of the appellees, Barbara Fey and L. Gail Wurtele, across the appellants’ property for agricultural farming and recreational use. The order also granted injunctive relief regarding inaccessible crops. The appellants acquired their property in 2016 and locked the gate to the access road, leading to the appellees' action for a declaratory judgment seeking a prescriptive easement and injunctive relief.The district court found that the appellees' use of the access road had been exclusive, adverse, under a claim of right, continuous and uninterrupted, and open and notorious for beyond the full 10-year prescriptive period. The court declared and ordered that the appellees, and their successors in interest, have the right of ingress and egress to their property utilizing the access road across the appellants' property. The court also granted injunctive relief, enjoining the appellants from interfering with the appellees' use of the access road.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the appellees had established the elements of entitlement to a prescriptive easement, and the appellants did not rebut such evidence. The court found that the prescriptive easement for both agricultural and recreational use was supported by the record and did not err in the scope of the relief awarded. The court also agreed with the district court that it was not necessary to address the appellants' theory of an easement by necessity, as the matter was resolved by the prescriptive easement order. View "Fey v. Olson" on Justia Law

Bryan and Ami Hauxwell, farmers using ground and surface water for irrigation, submitted a request to pool ground water from several registered wells for the 2023-2027 allocation period. The Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) denied their application, citing a rule that allows denial for any reason, including rule violations. The denial was communicated through a letter and a marked application. The Hauxwells challenged this denial, alleging it violated their constitutional rights and was arbitrary and capricious.The Hauxwells filed a petition for review with the district court for Frontier County, Nebraska, under the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (NGWMPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argued that the denial was contrary to a court order staying penalties previously imposed by the NRD. The NRD moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the letter was not a final agency action or an order in a contested case, and thus not subject to judicial review under the APA. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that the letter did not arise from a contested case and was not a final order of the decision-making body.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the letter denying the Hauxwells' pooling application was not an "order" as defined under the NGWMPA. The court explained that the term "order" in the NGWMPA includes orders required by the act, a rule or regulation, or a decision adopted by the board of directors of a natural resources district. However, the letter in question did not meet these criteria, as it was not issued as part of any case or proceeding and was not required by any specific authority. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD" on Justia Law

Bryan and Ami Hauxwell, farmers using ground and surface water for irrigation, were involved in a dispute with the Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) over alleged violations of the NRD’s rules and regulations. The NRD claimed the Hauxwells used ground water to irrigate uncertified acres, failed to install flowmeters, and used non-compliant flowmeters. The NRD issued a cease-and-desist order and penalties after a 2020 hearing, where the NRD’s general manager and counsel participated in the board’s deliberations.The Hauxwells challenged the 2020 findings in the district court for Frontier County, which ruled in their favor, citing due process violations and remanded the case. In 2021, the NRD issued a new complaint and held another hearing, excluding the general manager and counsel from deliberations. The board again found violations but deferred penalties to a later hearing. The district court dismissed the Hauxwells' challenge to the 2021 findings, stating it was not a final order as penalties were not yet determined.In 2022, the NRD held a hearing to determine penalties, resulting in restrictions on the Hauxwells' water use. The Hauxwells filed another petition for review, arguing that the 2020 due process violations tainted the subsequent hearings. The district court agreed, reversing the NRD’s 2022 findings and vacating the penalties.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in concluding that the 2020 due process violations tainted the 2021 and 2022 hearings. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with directions to address the other claims in the Hauxwells' petition for review. The court emphasized that the NRD’s actions in 2021 and 2022 were separate and not influenced by the 2020 hearing’s procedural issues. View "Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD" on Justia Law