Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for four counts of first degree sexual assault, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not commit plain error when it admitted the DNA evidence that linked Defendant to the assaults; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant's motion to remove counsel and appoint substitute counsel; and (3) regarding Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, either the record on direct appeal showed the claim was without merit or that the record was not sufficient to review the claim. View "State v. Weathers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal of the district court's judgment revoking Appellant's post release supervision and ordering that he serve the entirety of the time remaining on his post release supervision term in jail, holding that because Appellant had completely served his sentence, his appeal was moot.Appellant was convicted of a felony offense in one district court and multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses in another district court. Both sentences included terms of incarceration and terms of post release supervision. After Appellant served the incarceration portion of his sentences and had been released the State filed a motion in one district court alleging that he had violated the terms of his postrelease supervision. The court revoked Defendant's postrelease supervision and ordered that he serve the time remaining on his postrelease supervision in jail. On appeal, Appellant argued that the district court ordered that he serve more time in jail that was allowable by law. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Appellant's completion of the sentence rendered his appeal moot, and none of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. View "State v. Roberts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first degree murder, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting DNA analysis conducted by using TrueAllele probabilistic genotyping software over Defendant's challenges pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 631 N.W.2d 862 (2001).DNA evidence presented at Defendant's jury trial linked him to the murder for which he was convicted. During the jury trial, Defendant raised Daubert/Schafersman challenges to the DNA evidence, challenging TrueAllele's methodology. The district court admitted the evidence, applying the Daubert/Schafersman analytical framework and determining that the methodology of TrueAllele probabilistic genotyping was reliable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing admission of the TrueAllele evidence. View "State v. Simmer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the district court's determinations that a portion of Husband's 401K and proceeds from an inheritance constituted nonmarital property, holding that the court did not abuse its discretion in setting off property as non marital in accordance with Husband's testimony.In reversing, the court of appeals found that Husband did not meet his burden of proving that his 401K had a value of $130,000 at the time of his marriage to Wife and did not prove the amount he inherited from his father. Husband appealed, arguing that the court of appeals erred in determining that because he offered no documentary evidence at trial to support his undisputed testimony he failed to meet his burden of proof that he had $130,000 in a 401K at the time of marriage and that he received a $60,000 inheritance during the marriage. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in determining that documentary evidence is necessary to establish a claim to non marital property and that a nonmarital value must be proved definitively; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Husband's testimony to be credible and setting off the amounts claimed as nonmarital. View "Burgardt v. Burgardt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Appellant's motion to revive a judgment she obtained against Appellee more than two decades ago after Appellee stopped making payments, holding that the district court correctly overruled the motion for revivor on the ground that it was untimely.Appellant never executed on the judgment she obtained against Appellee, but Appellee made payments to her beginning in 1996 and ending in 2017. In 2018, Appellant filed a motion for revivor of the judgment. The district court overruled the motion as untimely, concluding that Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-216, which provides that partial payments generally toll the limitations period in contract actions, did not extend the time period for Appellant to seek reviver of a judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the judgment had become dormant and that the time period to revive it had expired. View "Nelssen v. Ritchie" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's second amended motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that Appellant was not entitled to postconviction relief for his constitutional claims.Appellant's constitutional claims in his motion for postconviction relief alleged that he was shackled during jury selection, the sentencing scheme requiring a judge to make factual findings to impose the death penalty was unconstitutional, and his constitutional rights were violated by the Legislature's passing a bill repealing the death penalty but a public referendum reimposing it. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that each of Appellant's constitutional claims failed. View "State v. Mata" on Justia Law

In this action for negligence and premises liability the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court entering summary judgment in favor of Defendant, holding that there was no evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could infer that Plaintiff had established all the elements of his premises liability case.Peggy Williamson was injured when she fell on a curb outside the entrance to Bellevue Medical Center, LLC (BMC). There was no defect in the curb, and the curb did not violate any code or ordinance. Peggy brought this action, and after her death, the action was revived in the name of her husband, Jay Williamson (Plaintiff). The district court granted summary judgment for BMC, concluding that Plaintiff failed to produce evidence that the curb created an unreasonable danger. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that evidence existed supporting an inference that the unpainted, tapered curb posed an unreasonable risk of harm to lawful entrants, such as Peggy, who would fail to protect themselves against the danger. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that BMC carried its burden to show it was entitled to summary judgment. View "Williamson v. Bellevue Medical Center, LLC" on Justia Law

In this case disputing grandparent visitation the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Grandfather's civil contempt proceeding but vacated the court's order modifying the decree for grandparent visitation to reduce summer visitation with Grandfather, holding that the court's determination of modification as a consequence of the contempt hearing was improper due to a lack of notice and an opportunity to be heard.After the father of two children died, the paternal grandfather (Grandfather) obtained a decree for grandparent visitation. When the children later refused to visit Grandfather and Mother was unable to compel then Grandfather bought a contempt proceeding against Mother. Mother subsequently filed a complaint for modification of grandparent visitation. The district court found that Mother did not willfully and contumaciously violate the visitation decree and further dismissed the complaint for modification. The court, however, ultimately modified the decree to reduce visitation with Grandfather without holding a separate hearing on modification. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court's determination that Mother was not in contempt was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) the district court erred when it modified the decree in its order filed after the contempt hearing. View "Krejci v. Krejci" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs' action asking that the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services' (DCS) "Execution Protocol" be declared void and that DCS be enjoined from carrying out executions under the Execution Protocol, holding that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action.Plaintiffs were two Nebraska citizens who brought this action alleging that DCS did not comply with statutory and constitutional requirements when it adopted the Execution Protocol setting forth how death sentences are to be carried out. The district court dismissed the action without reaching the merits, finding that Plaintiffs lacked standing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Plaintiffs did not face death sentences the Execution Protocol did not impair or threaten to interfere with their legal rights; and (2) the exceptions to the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury to his or her legal rights to invoke a court's jurisdiction do not apply in an action brought under Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-911. View "Griffith v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court convicting Defendant of two counts of sexual assault of a child in the first degree and one count each of attempted sexual assault of a child in the first degree, sexual assault of a child in the third degree, and incest with a victim age seventeen or under, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error.After convicting Defendant the district court sentenced him to an aggregate period of 100 years' to life imprisonment, plus an additional term of imprisonment of thirty-two to seventy-three years. Defendant appealed, assigning several evidentiary errors and alleging that the district court inappropriately instructed the jury regarding venue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion as to the challenged evidentiary rulings; (2) regarding the jury instructions, Defendant was not prejudiced as to necessitate a reversal; (3) the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion, and Defendant's sentences were not excessive; and (4) Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law