Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for first-degree sexual assault, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting the English translation of Defendant's Spanish out-of-court statements as nonhearsay.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred when it admitted Luz Aguirre's Spanish-to-English translations of Defendant's out-of-court statements as a language conduit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) where the translator of a defendant's out-of-court verbal or written statements from a foreign language to English is shown to be qualified to perform such translation, and where the translator testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination, the translation is admissible as non hearsay under Neb. R. Evid. 801(4); (2) the district court did not err in admitting the nonhearsay evidence; and (3) there was no merit to Defendant's remaining claims. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the district court valuing of the shares of a closely held corporation, holding that the district court erred in entering judgment against both the shareholder and the corporation, rather than the shareholder alone, and in awarding corporate property rather than solely the value of the shares to be purchased.Randy Anderson and Michael Rafert each owned half the shares of A & R Ag Spraying and Trucking, Inc. (A&R). After Randy died, his interest in A&R was transferred to his wife, Cheryl. Cheryl petitioned the district court for judicial dissolution of the corporation, naming A&R and Rafert as defendants. Rafert filed an election to purchase the corporation. The trial court dismissed the dissolution proceedings due to Rafert's application. After determining the value of Cheryl's shares the trial court entered judgment against both A&R and Rafert and awarded Cheryl two corporate vehicles. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment against A&R and the award of vehicles, holding (1) A&R was not a party to the election-to-purchase proceedings, and therefore, the court lacked statutory authority to enter judgment against A&R once it determined the value of Cheryl's shares; and (2) the court lacked the authority to award corporate assets to Cheryl. View "Anderson v. A & R Ag Spraying & Trucking, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge in which he contended that the State failed to bring him to trial within the time required by Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207, holding that Defendant's statutory right to a speedy trial was not violated.In overruling Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, the district court concluded that a period of delay that resulted from a continuance of a settlement conference granted at the State's request but to which Defendant's counsel consented did not count toward the six-month speedy trial deadline. On appeal, Defendant argued that the delay brought about by the continuance of a settlement conference does not result in a period of excluded time. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the continuance of the settlement conference resulted in excluded time; and (2) Defendant statutory right to a speedy trial was not violated. View "State v. Liming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant postconviction relief, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder on a felony murder theory and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant filed multiple motions for postconviction relief, which the district court denied without a hearing. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that Defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for counsel's failure to advise him of his right to testify and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for counsel's failure to assert on appeal that his right to self-representation was violated at trial. On remand, the district court found that Defendant was not entitled to relief. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying relief on Defendant's two remaining claims. View "State v. Ely" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to first degree felony murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's claims on appeal.On appeal, Defendant raised claims regarding the admission fo controlled substance and firearm evidence, the termination of a witness' deposition, sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motions in limine and in admitting evidence of controlled substances from Defendant's home and evidence of a firearm; (2) the admission of a single reference to "multiple packages of marijuana" was, at most, harmless error; (3) the evidence supported Defendant's convictions; and (4) the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel reached on direct appeal lacked merit. View "State v. Devers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the revocation of Appellant's motor vehicle operator's license for refusing to submit to a chemical test of his breath, holding that the district court's decision was not contrary to law and was supported by competent evidence.On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court erred in failing to find that the requirements for revocation of his driver's license were not satisfied. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the district court applied the correct legal framework; and (2) the district court's decision that Appellant failed to carry his burden to show that he took the chemical test was supported by competent evidence. View "Travis v. Lahm" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court awarding joint legal and physical custody of J.F. to Sara P., Tyler F., and Geoffrey V., holding that the district court committed plain error in considering Geoffrey's paternity complaint while failing to give proper legal effect to Tyler's acknowledgment of paternity.Sara gave birth to J.F. and represented to Tyler that he was J.F.'s father. Tyler signed an acknowledgment of paternity when J.F. was born. Tyler later filed a complaint to establish paternity, custody, and parenting time seeking joint legal and physical custody of J.F. After a DNA test excluded Tyler as the biological father, Geoffrey filed a complaint to establish paternity seeking that physical and legal custody be placed with Sara subject to his and Tyler's visitation rights. After the case was remanded, the district court awarded legal and physical custody of J.F. until the end of that year, at which time all three parties were awarded joint legal and physical custody. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court committed plain error in considering Geoffrey's complaint to establish his paternity of J.F. when Tyler's acknowledgment remained in place and established Tyler as J.F.'s father. View "Tyler F. v. Sara P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the restitution component of Defendant's sentence, holding that the county court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution, but remanded the matter with directions to modify the written judgment to conform to the pronounced sentence.Defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident and reckless driving after crashing into the victim's unoccupied vehicle and fleeing the scene by foot. The county court ordered restitution in the amount of $10,347, the cost of repairing the vehicle. The district court affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing the district court erred in affirming the restitution order because there was insufficient evidence of actual damages to warrant the restitution and because he was not capable of paying the restitution ordered. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case, holding (1) the county court did not abuse its discretion in its calculation of the amount of the victim's "actual damages"; (2) the county court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration of Defendant's ability to pay the sentence of restitution; and (3) there was plain error in the county court's failure to conform the written judgment to the pronounced judgment. View "State v. Street" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the order of the juvenile court granting the State's complaint seeking to disestablish the paternity of Aaron S. to a child born during his marriage to the child's mother and to establish paternity in another man, holding that the State was not statutorily authorized to bring the action.After genetic testing showed that Ian K. was the child's biological father the State filed a complaint seeking to establish Ian's paternity. A trial was held, and at the conclusion of the evidence the State asked the court to disestablish Aaron, the husband of the child's mother, as the child's legal father and to establish Ian as the child's father so he could effectively relinquish his rights. The juvenile court entered an order which purported to disestablish Aaron as the child's biological father and to establish Ian's as the child's father. The Supreme Court vacated the order, holding that because the child was not born out of wedlock and was the legitimate child of Aaron, the State lacked statutory authority to bring this paternity action under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-1411. View "State ex rel. Miah S. v. Ian K." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the juvenile court terminating the parental rights of Samantha H. to her minor child, Noah C., holding that the juvenile court did not err when it denied Samantha's motion to continue the termination and when it found that termination was in the best interests of Noah.After a termination hearing, the district court entered a written order finding that sufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate clearly and convincingly that termination of parental rights was appropriate under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-292(7) and in the best interests of Noah. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Samantha's motion for a continuance; and (2) it was shown by clear and convincing evidence that termination of Samantha's parental rights would be in Noah's best interests. View "In re Interest of Noah C." on Justia Law