Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sustaining the State's motion to dismiss this action brought by Defendant seeking DNA testing, holding that there was no error.In 1988, a jury convicted Defendant of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. In 2016, Defendant filed a motion requesting DNA testing on the victim's panties and on the steering wheel cover and floor mats of his car. The court sustained Defendant's request for DNA testing on those items and appointed counsel to represent him. After receiving the test results, the court denied relief under the DNA Testing Act and sustained the State's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and it did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's motion to dismiss. View "State v. Buckman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court affirming the county court's denial of Defendant's motion for a return of his seized firearm, holding that the lower courts erred.Law enforcement officers seized Defendant's shotgun incident to an arrest. Following his successful completion of probation, Defendant filed a motion in the county court to return his shotgun. The county court denied the motion and ordered that the firearm be destroyed. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State failed to meet its burden to show that Defendant's seized firearm was contraband or subject to forfeiture or that the government had some other continuing interest in the property. View "State v. Zimmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, holding that there was no error.Defendant, a criminal defense attorney, was arrested following his purchase of cocaine from his client during the course of a controlled delivery set up by the Western Nebraska Intelligence and Narcotics Group. The district court found Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and overruled his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in finding sufficient evidence to convict Defendant; and (2) did not err in denying a new trial based on evidence that was insufficient to warrant a new trial. View "State v. Worthman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the compensation court denying James Spratt's request seeking to modify his workers' compensation award, holding that the compensation court erred in holding that it lacked the statutory to do so and, alternatively, that the principal of finality precluded relief.Spratt injured his back while working for Crete Carrier Corporation and received a workers' compensation award granting medical rehabilitation services for his lumbar back. Spratt subsequently requested that the compensation court modify the original award so that he may receive thoracic back treatment. The compensation court denied Spratt's request for modification. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the compensation court erred in concluding that it lacked the power to modify the original award to treat Spratt's thoracic back; and (2) modification was not precluded by the law-of-the-case doctrine. View "Spratt v. Crete Carrier Corp." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Defendant's motion seeking to vacate and correct his sentence for driving under the influence, which Defendant received almost nine years earlier, holding that the county court did not err.In 2008, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, third offense. In 2010, Defendant's probation was revoked, and he was resentenced to a jail term, a fine, and a fifteen-year license revocation. No appeal was taken. Nine years later, Defendant filed a motion to reopen the case and vacate the previous sentencing order, asserting that the sentencing order improperly failed to include an order pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.01. The county court denied the motion, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that nine years after the judgment and conviction became final the county court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Defendant's motion to vacate and correct his sentence. View "State v. McAleese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance and finding him to be a habitual criminal, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Defendant was arrested after a police officer discovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in Defendant's vehicle and his person. After his conviction, Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and finding him to be a habitual criminal, and asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion and that Defendant's ineffective assistance claims were either without merit or not alleged with sufficient particularity. View "State v. Drake" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for terroristic threats, assault in the third degree, and intimidation by phone call, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's arguments that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions.Defendant's convictions stemmed from events that occurred on September 6, 2019 pertaining to three children Defendant shared with his ex-wife. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in overruling the motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds of insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Bryant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment for Continental Resources in this quiet title action against Kevin and Terry Fair, holding that the district court did not err in granting Continental's summary judgment motion to quiet title.At issue on appeal was the constitutionality of the statute that authorize the process allowing the county in which a property is located to sell a tax certificate for the property to a private party if the property owner fails to pay property taxes. If the owner fails to pay the taxes owed after a period of time and the tax certificate purchaser complies with certain requirements, the purchaser can obtain a deed to the property free of encumbrances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Nebraska's tax certificate sale statutes are not unconstitutional in the manner assigned by Fair. View "Continental Resources v. Fair" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Objectors' application for a special proceeding relating to elections in the district court for Lancaster County, request for a summary order removing Adam Morfeld's name from the May 2022 primary election ballot under Neb. Rev. Stat. 32-624, and requests to conduct discovery and expand the record, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Morfeld satisfied the statutory qualifications to seek nomination for the office of county attorney; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying discovery. View "Nebraska Republican Party v. Shively" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the order of the district court overruling Appellant's motion for absolute discharge wherein Appellant alleged violations of his statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial, holding Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was charged with domestic violence assault in the third degree and strangulation. After several continuances, Appellant filed a motion to discharge on speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the district court's order was sufficiently specific regarding the causes of the delay and the period of delay; (2) the district court's finding that Appellant's case should not be dismissed on statutory speedy trial grounds was not clearly erroneous; and (3) this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review Moody’s claim that he was entitled to absolute discharge on constitutional speedy trial grounds. View "State v. Moody" on Justia Law