Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court adjudicating Abigail G.'s son, Vladimir G., to be a child within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a), holding that although Abigail could invoke her Fifth Amendment right not to testify in this adjudication, any error on the part of the juvenile court in requiring her testimony was not reversible.During the adjudication hearing, Abigail objected to testifying based on Fifth Amendment grounds. The court overruled Abigail's objection. After the hearing, the county court filed an order finding Vladimir to be a child within the meaning of section 43-247(3)(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if the court erred in failing to determine that at least part of Abigail's testimony was incriminating and therefore protected by Abigail's invocation of her Fifth Amendment privilege, such error was not reversible because there was sufficient evidence to support the adjudication without such testimony and because Abigail's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the adjudication that Vladimir was a child within the meaning of section 43-247(3)(a). View "In re Interest of Vladimir G." on Justia Law

In this breach of contract action, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc., holding that Allen Acklie's action was based on an unenforceable contract.In 1994, Greater Omaha terminated Acklie's employment. In 2016, Acklie turned sixty years old and demanded payment under the terms of a deferred compensation agreement entered into by the parties in 1989. Acklie argued that his right to deferred compensation vested upon his attaining the age of sixty and that payment became due on the first day of the first month following his attaining the age of sixty-one. After Greater Omaha refused payment, Acklie filed this action. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Greater Omaha. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreement lacked mutuality of obligation and therefore was unenforceable. View "Acklie v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant challenged the State's use of exhibit 7 to prove that Defendant had a prior felony conviction. Specifically, Defendant argued that because exhibit 7 did not affirmatively show that he had or waived counsel at the time of his guilty plea in the prior case, exhibit 7 should not have been admitted into evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction; and (2) the district court did not err in admitting into evidence certified court records showing that Defendant had counsel at the time he was sentenced for his prior conviction but was silent as to whether he had counsel at the time he entered his plea. View "State v. Vann" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal challenging the order of the district court granting Defendant the right to proceed with his criminal appeal in forma pauperis, holding that the order was not a judgment nor was it a final order.Defendant entered a no contest plea to robbery. After Defendant was sentenced he filed his notice of appeal. The district court later entered an order finding Defendant was entitled to court-appointed appellate counsel. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court held that it had no jurisdiction over the State's interlocutory appeal. Defendant then filed an application to proceed with his appeal from the conviction and sentence in forma pauperis. The court granted the application. The State appealed the district court's approval of Defendant's application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal. View "State v. Fredrickson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the judgment of the district court determining that it was in Child's best interests to continue living with Mother and in declining to change custody of Child to Father, holding that deployment of Mother's military spouse for one year to a base near Washington, D.C., coupled with a change in employment conditions after the deployment ended, constituted a legitimate reason for leaving the state.After Mother, who had custody of Child, remarried, she sought a modification requesting permission to move with Child to the District of Columbia and thereafter to wherever he husband was stationed. The court granted Mother leave to remove Child from Nebraska and to determine his primary place of residence. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) Mother established a legitimate reason for leaving Nebraska and moving with Child to the District of Columbia, and the district court did not err in determining that it was in Child's best interests to continue living with Mother; (2) the court did not err in declining to change custody of Child to Father; and (3) to the extent the order authorizes Mother to later move with Child to Missouri or Alabama, the order is modified to eliminate that authority. View "State, ex rel. Ryley G. v. Ryan G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for aiding and abetting robbery and for aiding and abetting first degree assault, holding that Defendant's assignments of error were either without merit or could not be considered in this appeal.Defendant was convicted in a second jury trial after his first trial ended in a deadlocked jury and a mistrial was declared. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in the first trial by failing to ask the jury whether it was deadlocked on each count and when it overruled Defendant's plea in bar filed after the declaration of a mistrial and before the second trial. Defendant further claimed that in the second trial, (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a new trial, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, (3) counsel was ineffective, (4) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, and (5) the trial court imposed excessive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that some of Defendant's allegations of error could not be considered in this appeal and that, as to the remaining allegations, the district court did not err or abuse its discretion. View "State v. Price" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment affirming a state agency's denial of Medicaid eligibility after J.S., a noncitizen who was admitted into the bridge to independence program (B2I), reached age nineteen, holding that the statutes and regulations cited by J.S. did not authorize her participation despite her immigration status and age.B2I, Nebraska's extended foster care program, was created by the Young Adult Bridge to Independence Act (YABI), Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-4501 to 43-4514. J.S., a citizen of El Salvador who fled to Nebraska as a minor, was adjudicated in juvenile court and placed into foster care. Upon turning nineteen years old, J.S. was accepted into B2I but was denied Medicaid coverage after her nineteenth birthday. The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) upheld the denial of Medicaid benefits. At issue on appeal was whether J.S. could receive Medicaid under B2I. The district court concluded that because the Nebraska Legislature did not affirmatively provide for unlawful aliens to receive Medicaid benefits under B2I, J.S. was not entitled to Medicaid benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that J.S. was not eligible for Medicaid. View "J.S. v. Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming the decision of a state agency ruling several noncitizen applicants ineligible for all public benefits of the Bridge to Independence program (B2I), holding that the district court did not err in determining that applicants were not eligible for B2I.The applicants in this case were Guatemalan citizens who fled to Nebraska as minors. Each applicant was adjudicated pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a) and placed in foster care. The applicants, who had already received special immigration juvenile status, applied to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for B2I. DHHS denied the applications because each applicant failed to meet the citizenship and lawful presence requirements. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that the applicants were not eligible for B2I because the applicants were not "lawfully present" and the legislature did not "affirmatively provide[]" for unlawful applicants to be eligible under the Young Adult Bridge to Independence Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-4501 to 43-4514. View "E.M. v. Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's plea-based conviction for third degree domestic assault, attempted tampering with a witness or informant, and violating a protection order, holding that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.On appeal, Defendant asserted that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to continue the plea in abatement, failing to file a plea in abatement, failing to move the trial court to require the State to produce the alleged victim for deposition and exclude the alleged victim as a witness, failing to move to suppress Defendant's statement, and counseling Defendant to enter a plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that his counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for second degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and other crimes, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress or in declining to sever certain charges and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in failing to suppress statements Defendant made to law enforcement and cell phone data acquired pursuant to a search warrant; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to sever the two counts of tampering with a witness from the other charges; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the verdicts. View "State v. Benson" on Justia Law