Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Melissa S. Bret was charged with theft by shoplifting goods valued at $500 or less and having two prior convictions for the same offense, which would classify the crime as a Class IV felony. A jury found her guilty of shoplifting property valued at $77.64. After the jury returned its verdict, the district court adjudged Bret guilty of theft by shoplifting, a Class IV felony, and sentenced her to 1 year’s imprisonment. However, no evidence was presented regarding Bret’s prior convictions, and the court did not make any findings about such convictions.The District Court for Douglas County initially adjudged Bret guilty of a Class IV felony based on the jury's verdict. During the sentencing hearing, the court and both parties proceeded under the assumption that Bret was being sentenced for a Class IV felony. The presentence investigation report also indicated that Bret was charged with and convicted of a Class IV felony. However, the court did not hold a separate enhancement hearing to determine the existence of prior convictions, nor did the State present evidence of such convictions.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in enhancing Bret’s offense to a Class IV felony without evidence of prior convictions. The court held that the sentence imposed was illegal because it exceeded the permissible statutory penalty for a Class II misdemeanor, which is the correct classification based on the jury's finding of the value involved. The Supreme Court vacated Bret’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The court also concluded that the State did not waive its right to seek enhancement and may attempt to prove Bret’s prior convictions on remand. View "State v. Bret" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with three counts of sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse, involving two young victims, M.R. and E.R. The alleged crimes occurred while the defendant was babysitting the children during their mother's part-time evening job. M.R. disclosed the sexual assaults years later, and E.R. disclosed the physical abuse during a forensic interview. The defense argued that the children's memories were unreliable and that the defendant lacked the opportunity to commit the crimes.The trial court joined the charges for a single trial, and the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the joinder of charges, request a limiting instruction, and object to certain testimonies on hearsay and foundation grounds. He also claimed the trial court erred in overruling an objection to a witness's testimony about delayed disclosures of abuse.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the charges were properly joined as they were "connected together" under the relevant statute, given the overlapping timeframes, locations, and witnesses. The court also held that the defendant failed to show prejudice from the joinder, as the evidence was cross-admissible for proper purposes, and the jury was instructed to consider each charge separately. The court found no merit in the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as the objections would likely have lacked merit or the evidence was cumulative. The court also ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the witness's testimony about delayed disclosures. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Corral" on Justia Law

Sarah A. Backhaus and David R. Backhaus were married in 2010 and separated in February 2021. Sarah filed for divorce in April 2022. During the marriage, David received an inheritance, which he deposited into a jointly held savings account (account x4020). At the time of their separation, the account had a balance of $323,571.70. David claimed that the funds in the account were nonmarital, originating from his inheritance, while Sarah contended that the funds were marital property.The district court for Douglas County held a two-day trial in March 2023. David testified about his inheritance and its source, explaining that the funds were deposited into account x4020. He also described various expenditures made from the inheritance, including cars, his education, and the startup costs for Sarah's business. The district court found David's testimony credible and determined that the funds in account x4020 were nonmarital property, awarding the balance to David.Sarah appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals concluded that David's testimony was insufficient to establish the nonmarital nature of the funds in account x4020, as it lacked specific details about the inheritance amount, its expenditure, and the account into which it was deposited. The Court of Appeals directed that the funds be included in the marital estate and divided equitably.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that David's testimony, along with circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the funds in account x4020 were nonmarital. The court emphasized that credible testimony alone can establish a nonmarital interest in property. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to affirm the district court's order. View "Backhaus v. Backhaus" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Keith L. Allen, shot and killed Brett Allen Torres in May 2020. Allen was subsequently prosecuted and convicted of first-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Separately, Victoria A. Czech, as the personal representative of Torres' estate, sued Allen for wrongful death and conscious suffering. Czech also sought and obtained an order of prejudgment attachment on Allen’s assets, fearing he might conceal or remove them.The district court for Lincoln County, Nebraska, overruled Allen’s pretrial motions, including a motion for change of venue and a motion in limine to exclude evidence of his convictions. The court also granted Czech’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, finding no material issue of fact regarding Allen’s responsibility for Torres’ death. Allen’s subsequent objection and motion to vacate the order of prejudgment attachment were also overruled.Allen appealed these decisions during the trial (case No. S-23-1037) and after a jury awarded Czech $130,000 in damages (case No. S-24-047). The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the orders challenged were not final. In the second appeal, the court affirmed the district court’s decisions, finding no abuse of discretion or error in the rulings.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s motion for change of venue, as Allen failed to provide evidence of pervasive pretrial publicity. The court also found that Allen did not preserve his claim regarding the motion in limine because he did not object to the evidence at the summary judgment hearing. The court affirmed the partial summary judgment, noting the record was insufficient to review the decision. The court also found Allen’s claims regarding the prejudgment attachment moot due to the final judgment. Finally, the court held that the district court retained jurisdiction despite Allen’s appeal, as the appeal was not from a final order. View "Czech v. Allen" on Justia Law

An inmate, Trever Ballheim, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Ballheim was originally sentenced to two different terms: 2 to 2 years for possession of a controlled substance and 10 to 11 years for being a habitual criminal. The district court later issued an order nunc pro tunc, changing the sentence for possession to 10 to 11 years, which Ballheim argued was void as it was issued without his presence and beyond the court's term.The district court dismissed Ballheim's petition without a hearing, citing that habeas corpus is not available for mere errors in judgment. Ballheim contended that the nunc pro tunc order was a nullity and that his sentence for being a habitual criminal was void, as it is not a crime. He argued that he had already served the valid sentence for possession.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the nunc pro tunc order was void because it improperly changed the original sentence beyond correcting a clerical error. The court held that the original sentence for being a habitual criminal was void, as habitual criminality is not a separate crime but an enhancement. Since Ballheim had served the valid sentence for possession, he was entitled to habeas relief.The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with directions to issue the writ of habeas corpus and hold a hearing to determine if Ballheim should be discharged from custody. View "Ballheim v. Settles" on Justia Law

John G. Strawn entered a plea agreement to plead no contest to two counts of third-degree assault. The State agreed not to mention any sexual contact in the factual basis for the charges. However, the county court found that Strawn had subjected a victim to sexual contact based on information in the presentence investigation report (PSR) and ordered him to register as a sex offender under Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).Strawn appealed to the district court, arguing that the county court erred in requiring him to register as a sex offender because the factual basis provided by the State did not include any evidence of sexual contact. He also contended that the county court should have made a specific credibility finding and that he was denied procedural due process. Additionally, Strawn challenged the county court's advisement that his conviction might result in a federal firearms prohibition. The district court rejected Strawn's arguments and affirmed the county court's judgment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no merit in Strawn's arguments. The court held that SORA does not require evidence of sexual contact to be present in both the factual basis and the PSR; it is sufficient if such evidence is found in the record, which includes both the factual basis and the PSR. The court also determined that the county court was not required to make an express credibility finding and that there was sufficient evidence in the PSR to support the finding of sexual contact. The court concluded that Strawn was afforded procedural due process, as he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding SORA registration. Finally, the court noted that the county court's advisement about the potential federal firearms prohibition did not impose any prohibition itself. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Strawn" on Justia Law

Keloni Jones was involved in an altercation outside a bar in Omaha, Nebraska, where she shot and killed a security guard. She was initially charged with second-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Under a plea agreement, the charges were amended to manslaughter and possession of a deadly weapon during the commission of a felony, to which Jones pled no contest.The District Court for Douglas County initially sentenced Jones to 20 to 20 years for manslaughter and 20 years plus 1 day for possession of a deadly weapon, to be served consecutively. However, the court later realized the manslaughter sentence was invalid as it did not comply with statutory requirements. The court reconvened and modified the manslaughter sentence to 19 years 364 days to 20 years, while keeping the possession of a deadly weapon sentence unchanged.Jones appealed, arguing that the district court erred in modifying the sentence and that the sentences were excessive. The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the district court had the authority to modify the invalid sentence before it was entered into the court's records. The court also found that the sentences were within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion, considering the nature of the crime and the benefits Jones received from the plea agreement.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the modified sentences. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, who was convicted of first and third degree sexual assault of his stepdaughter. The assaults allegedly occurred between December 1, 2021, and February 24, 2022, in Grand Island, Hall County, Nebraska. The victim, a minor, reported the assaults to her boyfriend, who then informed school authorities, leading to the defendant's arrest. The victim testified that the assaults included both nonpenetrative and penetrative acts, with the latter occurring shortly before she disclosed the abuse.In the District Court for Hall County, the defendant filed a praecipe for a subpoena duces tecum to have a doctor testify about a medical report indicating the victim reported a sexual assault occurring approximately four months prior to March 25, 2022. The court quashed the subpoena and barred the evidence, citing a discovery violation and failure to follow proper procedures for obtaining privileged medical records. The court also denied the defendant's motion in limine to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults outside the charged timeframe.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of the discovery sanction for appeal by not renewing the offer of proof at trial. The court also found no prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, as the defendant did not specifically assign as error the failure to make an offer of proof at trial or to question the victim about her statement to the doctor.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the defendant adequately preserved the issue of the discovery sanction through his offer of exhibit 2 and the evidence adduced at trial. However, the court found that any error in excluding the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as the defendant was able to confront the victim with similar inconsistent statements during cross-examination. The court also concluded that the defendant could not establish prejudice from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, as the exclusion of the evidence did not materially influence the outcome of the case. View "State v. Aquino" on Justia Law