Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court affirming the judgment of the county court overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge under Nebraska's speedy trial statutes, holding that Defendant was entitled to absolute discharge under the speedy trial statutes.The State filed theft charges against Defendant on March 29, 2017. When Defendant did not appear for a scheduled arraignment the county court issued a warrant for his arrest. On April 24, 2019, Defendant was arrested. Defendant moved for absolute discharge on the grounds that he had been denied his statutory right to a speedy trial. The county court overruled the motion, stating that the period of time during which the arrest warrant was pending was excluded under the speedy trial statutes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the lower courts erred in finding that the pendency of the warrant resulted in excluded time, and the State produced insufficient evidence at the speedy trial hearing that could support any other basis for excluded time; and (2) Defendant was entitled to absolute discharge under the speedy trial statutes. View "State v. Chapman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court imposing a life sentence for a second degree murder conviction to run consecutively with a sentence of twenty-five to thirty-five years' imprisonment for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, holding that the district court did not impose an excessive sentence.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The district court imposed a life sentence for the second degree murder conviction and a consecutive sentence of twenty-five to thirty-five years' imprisonment for the use of a deadly weapon conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sentence imposed by the district court was not excessive. View "State v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences in two cases in which he entered into no contest pleas to felony charges, holding that there was no error.In two separate cases, Defendant was charged with multiple felonies. Defendant entered pleas of no contest in both cases. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in not allowing him to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing and in imposing excessive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea based not understand the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act consequences; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the imposition of Defendant's sentences. View "State v. Canady" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for child abuse, holding that the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-1848 allows a victim both to fill out a victim impact statement to be included in the presentence investigation report and also to write and read a separate letter to be offered at the defendant's sentencing hearing.Defendant pled no contest to one count of misdemeanor child abuse. After a hearing, Defendant was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court abused its discretion by allowing the victim to submit a statement to be included in the presentence investigation report and also allowing her to read a separate letter that was offered into evidence for purposes of resentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's first assignment of error was without merit; and (2) Defendant's sentence was not excessive. View "State v. Hurd" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for violating a municipal ordinance prohibiting battery, holding that the Court was unable to read the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide notice, as required by Neb. Ct. R. App. P. 2-109(E).Defendant was denied a jury trial for his alleged violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting battery despite a separate ordinance imposing a ten-year ban upon possession of firearms by a person convicted of violating the battery ordinance. Following a bench trial, the county court convicted Defendant of violating the battery ordinance. The district court affirmed. Defendant appealed, implicitly challenging the constitutionality of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-2705, which prohibits jury trials for criminal cases arising under city ordinances. Defendant, however, failed to comply with the procedural rule governing constitutional challenges to statutes. The Supreme Court affirmed after strictly applying Rule 2-109(E), holding that the Court was unable to reach the merits of Defendant's appeal because he failed to provide the notice required by Rule 2-109(E). View "State v. Denton" on Justia Law

After Appellant appealed an order of the district court finding him in contempt of court and modifying terms of a parenting plan, the Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal from an order of commitment and a purge order containing a reduction in Appellant's parenting time, holding that, as to the first appeal, there was no abuse of discretion, and that, as to the second appeal, there was no final order.The district court found Appellant in contempt of court for violating parenting provisions of a dissolution decree, imposed a suspended jail sentence, and modified terms of the parenting plan in this case. Appellant appealed this order. While the appeal was pending, the court entered an order of commitment and a purge order reducing Appellant's parenting time but setting the matter for a future review hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed as to the first appeal and dismissed the second appeal for lack of a final order, holding (1) the modifications at issue in the first appeal were part of the equitable relief the court had the authority to provide; and (2) the second appeal was not taken from a final order. View "Yori v. Helms" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed a series of orders fixing fees for court-appointed counsel in a juvenile proceeding, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.After Mother's children were adjudicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) the State moved to terminate Mother's parental rights. The juvenile court denied the State's motion following a trial. The court of appeals affirmed. Thereafter, Mother filed three fee applications seeking payment for services rendered by court-appointed counsel. The court found Mother's requested fees were fair and reasonable and allowed the fee applications. The Supreme Court affirmed after clarifying the statutory framework for appealing such orders, holding that there was no abuse of discretion. View "In re Claim of Roberts for Attorney Fees" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled the State's exceptions to the district court's dismissal of charges filed against Deborah Archer and Cory Russell, holding that there was no error in the district court's dismissal of the informations against Archer and Russell.Archer and Russell were charged with crimes involving their sale of products continuing cannabidiol, also known as CBD. After a hearing during which evidence was presented that the pharmacological effects of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, and CBD were not similar, the district court dismissed without prejudice the charges for failure of sufficient probable cause. The State filed an application taking exception to the district court's dismissals. The Supreme Court overruled the exceptions, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the charges. View "State v. Archer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the district court dismissing Appellants' automobile negligence actions after the court determined that they were barred by the parental immunity doctrine, holding that the automobile negligence claims alleged in these cases fell outside the scope of Nebraska's parental immunity doctrine.Mother was driving a car with her minor children when the vehicle left the roadway and rolled several times. Mother and her daughter died from injuries sustained in the accident, and her son was seriously injured. The daughter's estate filed a wrongful death and survival action against Mother's estate, and the son filed a separate negligence action against Mother's estate. Both actions alleged that Mother's negligent operation of the vehicle caused the accident. The district court granted summary judgment for Mother's estate, concluding that the doctrine of parental immunity applied to bar the negligence claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the negligence actions were not barred by the doctrine of parental immunity. View "Nolasco v. Malcom" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that modified the decree dissolving Jayson Tilson's marriage, holding that there was no merit to Jayson's claims on appeal.In 2015, the court entered a decree of dissolution ordering the continuation of the maternal grandmother's legal and physical custody as to Jayson's three minor children. In 2017, Jayson filed a complaint requesting that the decree be vacated as void and that, in the alternative, the decree be modified to place custody of the children with him. The district court rejected Jayson's argument that the original decree was void, ordered that custody should remain with the grandmother, but modified the decree as to parenting time and child support. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error on the part of the district court. View "Tilson v. Tilson" on Justia Law