Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Brant A. Geller pled no contest to three counts of possession of a controlled substance and one count of attempted possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The district court orally pronounced his sentences and issued a written sentencing order. A few hours later, the district court issued an amended sentencing order. Geller appealed, challenging his sentences, arguing that the amended sentencing order was contrary to the oral pronouncement and that his sentences were excessive.The district court initially sentenced Geller to 6 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ post-release supervision for each possession charge, and 18 months’ imprisonment and 12 months’ post-release supervision for the weapon charge. The court stated that the sentences for the possession charges would run concurrently, but the weapon charge would run consecutively. The written sentencing order reflected this, but the amended order clarified that the post-release supervision for the weapon charge would also run consecutively.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that when an orally pronounced sentence is ambiguous, a subsequent written sentencing order can clarify the ambiguity. The court found that the district court’s oral pronouncement was contradictory regarding whether the post-release supervision terms were to run concurrently or consecutively. The amended sentencing order clarified this ambiguity, stating that the post-release supervision for the weapon charge would run consecutively to the other charges.The court also reviewed Geller’s argument that his sentences were excessive. It found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Geller, as the sentences were within statutory limits and the court considered the appropriate factors. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision. View "State v. Geller" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The incident involved the shooting death of Barbara Williams in front of an apartment complex in Omaha, Nebraska. The shooter, identified by some witnesses as the defendant, arrived in a white sedan, fired multiple shots, and fled the scene. The defendant's primary defense was an alibi, claiming he was at a barbecue at the time of the shooting. Several witnesses and photographs supported this alibi, but the State argued he could have committed the crime and arrived at the barbecue shortly after.The trial court admitted cell phone data showing the defendant searched for news about the shooting shortly after it occurred. The defendant's motion to suppress this evidence was denied. On direct appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, finding the search warrant for the cell phone data was supported by probable cause and sufficiently particular.The defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on several grounds, including failure to object to the printouts of cell phone data, failure to adequately cross-examine witnesses, failure to challenge the investigation of an alternative suspect with dreadlocks, and failure to call a key alibi witness. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning that the defendant did not suffer prejudice from these alleged deficiencies.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court found that the defendant's allegations, even if true, did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different. The court noted that defense counsel had effectively cross-examined witnesses, challenged the State's evidence, and presented a cohesive alibi defense. The court also held that the failure to call the alibi witness, Richard, did not constitute ineffective assistance, as his testimony would not have significantly altered the evidentiary picture presented to the jury. View "State v. Goynes" on Justia Law

Lizette Aguilar petitioned for a domestic abuse protection order against Ana Valdez-Mendoza, her daughter's stepmother, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-924. Aguilar alleged that Valdez-Mendoza physically assaulted her during a visit to drop off her daughter at the home of her ex-husband, Fernando Mendoza, who is married to Valdez-Mendoza. The district court issued an ex parte protection order, which was affirmed after a hearing. Valdez-Mendoza appealed, arguing that the court erred in concluding that she and Aguilar were related by "affinity" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 42-903.The district court for Madison County found that Aguilar and Valdez-Mendoza had a relationship by "affinity" because Aguilar is related to her daughter, and the daughter's father is married to Valdez-Mendoza. The court overruled Valdez-Mendoza's motion to dismiss and affirmed the protection order, reasoning that the statutory phrase "related by affinity" was broad enough to include their relationship.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in its interpretation of "affinity." The court defined "affinity" as the relationship arising from the marriage contract between one spouse and the blood relations of the other, not extending to Aguilar herself, who is not related by consanguinity to Mendoza. Therefore, Aguilar and Valdez-Mendoza were not related by affinity under § 42-903. The court reversed the district court's decision and vacated the protection order. View "Aguilar v. Valdez-Mendoza" on Justia Law

Richard Muller filed a claim against the estate of John Weeder, deceased, under the Nebraska Probate Code. Muller’s claim was based on a modified judgment entered in his favor against Weeder in a separate fence dispute action before Weeder's death. The county court appointed Margene Cork as the personal representative of Weeder’s estate in October 2017. Muller filed a "Statement of Claim" in December 2017 and a "Petition for Allowance of Claim" in September 2023. Cork, as the personal representative, resisted the claim and moved to strike it. The county court held a hearing and allowed Muller’s claim against the estate.The county court for Boyd County granted Muller’s petition and allowed his claim. The Estate appealed the decision, arguing that the county court lacked jurisdiction and that the law-of-the-case doctrine should apply based on a prior appeal in the fence dispute action. The appeal was initially directed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals but was moved to the Nebraska Supreme Court.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the county court had subject matter jurisdiction over Muller’s claim against the estate. The court noted that the county court has exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters relating to decedents’ estates. The court also rejected the Estate’s argument that the law-of-the-case doctrine applied, as the prior decision was made in a different action and not in the current probate case. The Supreme Court affirmed the county court’s judgment allowing Muller’s claim against the estate. View "In re Estate of Weeder" on Justia Law

Chad R. Clausen was charged with violating Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) after an investigation revealed he had been intermittently staying at his fiancé’s house without notifying authorities. Clausen was registered under SORA at an address in Douglas County, Nebraska, but law enforcement received an anonymous tip that he was residing at a Washington County address. Evidence showed that Clausen had been staying at his fiancé’s residence in Washington County for several months. Clausen admitted to staying there for three days and then returning to his registered address for three days. The district court found Clausen guilty of violating SORA, determining that he had established a habitual living location and temporary domicile at his fiancé’s house without registering.Clausen appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, arguing that the State failed to prove he established a habitual living location or temporary domicile and that the definitions of these terms were unconstitutionally vague. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, interpreting the definitions in line with a federal district court decision in Doe v. Nebraska, which required a person to stay at a location for three consecutive weekdays to establish a temporary domicile. The Court of Appeals found that Clausen’s admission of staying at the Washington County residence “most nights” allowed a rational trier of fact to conclude he stayed there for three consecutive weekdays.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation. The Supreme Court held that “working days” in the context of SORA refers to Mondays through Fridays, excluding legal holidays. The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove Clausen stayed at the Washington County residence for three consecutive weekdays or more than three consecutive days. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed Clausen’s conviction and vacated his sentence, concluding that the State failed to prove he violated SORA’s registration requirements. View "State v. Clausen" on Justia Law

Karsen H. Rezac was involved in a vehicular collision on December 23, 2022, in Lincoln, Nebraska, which resulted in the shooting death of Kupo Mleya. Rezac, who was identified as a suspect based on vehicle debris and witness reports, admitted to firing shots at Mleya's vehicle after the collision. Rezac was charged with second-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. He later pled no contest to second-degree murder as part of a plea agreement, and the firearm charge was dropped.The district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, denied Rezac's motion to continue his sentencing hearing, which he requested to allow more time to gather and review his mental health records. The court proceeded with the sentencing, considering the presentence investigation report and supplemental items. Rezac was sentenced to 60 years to life imprisonment. Rezac appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and imposing an excessive sentence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Rezac forfeited his argument regarding the denial of the continuance by failing to raise the issue at the sentencing hearing. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the sentencing, as the district court had considered the relevant mitigating factors. The court rejected Rezac's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to the failure to move to suppress his statement to law enforcement and the failure to explain the penalties for second-degree murder, finding that the record refuted these claims.However, the court found the record insufficient to address Rezac's claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him that self-defense was not a viable argument, failing to explain the difference between second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, and failing to provide his mental health records to probation or the court. The court affirmed Rezac's conviction and sentence but noted that these claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be resolved on direct appeal due to the insufficient record. View "State v. Rezac" on Justia Law

Phillip and Jodi Peterson hired Brandon Coverdell Construction, Inc. (BCC) to perform work on their home following a hailstorm. The Petersons were dissatisfied with the quality of BCC's work, while BCC was unhappy with the Petersons' partial payment. Both parties accused each other of breaching their written agreement and filed lawsuits in the county court. The county court ruled in favor of BCC, finding that the Petersons committed the first material breach.The Petersons appealed to the District Court for Douglas County but failed to file a statement of errors. They obtained a continuance to amend the bill of exceptions in the county court. The district court eventually found that the county court had committed plain error by entering judgment in favor of BCC, concluding that the written agreement was an unenforceable illusory contract. BCC then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in considering the supplemental bill of exceptions, which was not properly part of the record. The Supreme Court also determined that the county court did not commit plain error. The county court's decision to focus on the issues presented by the parties, rather than the enforceability of the contract, did not result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process. Consequently, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case with directions to affirm the county court's judgment. View "Peterson v. Brandon Coverdell Constr." on Justia Law

An employee, Matthew I. Ortega, voluntarily quit his job as an office manager at Island Towing after 17 years, citing work-related stress from interactions with law enforcement as the reason. Ortega applied for unemployment benefits, stating that the stress affected his mental health and ability to perform his job. The Nebraska Department of Labor denied his application, finding that he did not have good cause to quit.Ortega appealed to the Nebraska Department of Labor’s Appeal Tribunal, where both he and his supervisor, Chloe Aguilar, testified. Ortega described two specific incidents involving law enforcement that caused him significant stress, one of which occurred 2½ years prior to his resignation. Aguilar confirmed the ongoing negative interactions with law enforcement but stated that there was no way to alleviate the stress. The Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, stating that Ortega did not provide sufficient evidence, such as medical documentation, to prove that his stress constituted good cause for quitting.Ortega then appealed to the district court for Hall County, which affirmed the Appeal Tribunal’s decision. The district court agreed that Ortega’s stress was a health concern requiring medical evidence and noted that Ortega had not pursued alternative solutions to preserve the employment relationship, such as seeking a leave of absence or modifying his job duties.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Ortega failed to meet his burden of proof to show good cause for voluntarily leaving his employment. The court found that the evidence provided, including the details of only one specific negative interaction with law enforcement, was insufficient to establish that Ortega’s work conditions were an increasingly unreasonable burden affecting his health or sense of well-being. View "Ortega v. Albin" on Justia Law

The appellant, Dilang N. Dat, was convicted of assault by a confined person following an altercation with another inmate, Tilian Tilian, in the Hall County jail. Dat punched Tilian multiple times, causing him to fall to the ground. The incident was captured on surveillance video, and a corrections officer testified about the altercation and its aftermath. Dat was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with 228 days' credit for time served, followed by nine months of post-release supervision.The district court overruled Dat's motion for self-representation, finding his waiver of counsel was not voluntary as he stated it was made "in duress." The court also quashed a subpoena for a witness, Darla Sparr, because it was served less than two days before she was ordered to appear, and Dat failed to show good cause to shorten the statutory period for service. Dat's counsel argued that Sparr's testimony was necessary to challenge the evidence of bodily injury, but the court found no valid reason for the late subpoena.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that physical manifestation of an injury is not required to meet the definition of bodily injury under Nebraska law. The evidence, including the video and testimony, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that Dat caused bodily injury to Tilian. The court also found no abuse of discretion in quashing the subpoena for untimely service and concluded that Dat's trial counsel was not ineffective, as there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the subpoena been timely served. The court did not find plain error in the sentencing credit calculation due to the lack of a clear record on the issue. View "State v. Dat" on Justia Law

The case involves the administration of the Charles and Patricia Masek Family Trust. Barry Masek, a contingent beneficiary and successor cotrustee, alleged that his siblings, Mark Masek and Dianne Yahiro, also contingent beneficiaries and successor cotrustees, breached the trust. Barry claimed that Mark and Dianne blocked access to their mother, Patricia Masek, the settlor, beneficiary, and trustee, and misused trust assets for their benefit. Patricia later died, and the county court entered a money judgment against Mark and Dianne in favor of Barry and overruled their motion for a new trial.Mark and Dianne appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the county court's decision because it did not state the legal basis for finding Mark and Dianne liable for breach of trust. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine their liability either as de facto trustees or by participating in a breach of trust committed by Patricia.On remand, the county court received additional evidence and determined that Mark and Dianne were liable to the trust by participating in or inducing Patricia to commit breaches of trust while she was in their care. The court issued a judgment against Mark and Dianne for $1,276,858, which included various expenditures from the trust assets. Mark and Dianne appealed again, and Barry cross-appealed.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that competent evidence supported the county court's findings for some, but not all, of the disputed expenditures. The court modified the judgment to $619,000, affirming it in favor of Barry in his capacity as cotrustee of the Charles and Patricia Masek Family Trust. The court also upheld the award of additional attorney fees to Barry. View "In re Masek Family Trust" on Justia Law