Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Anthony J. Garcia was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder, among other charges, for crimes committed in Omaha, Nebraska, in 2008 and 2013. In October 2016, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to death in 2018. Garcia's convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. While his direct appeal was pending, Garcia filed a motion for a new trial, claiming newly discovered evidence suggested he was not competent during earlier proceedings.The District Court for Douglas County denied Garcia's motion for a new trial. The court found that the evidence Garcia presented, which included his positive response to involuntary medication in 2019 and a diagnosis of hearing loss in 2020, did not qualify as newly discovered evidence because it did not exist at the time of his trial or mitigation hearing. Additionally, the court found the motion was untimely, as it was filed three years after Garcia's counsel obtained the relevant records, without any explanation for the delay.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Garcia's motion and supporting documents failed to identify evidence so substantial that it would probably result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted. The court also found that Garcia's claims regarding his competency and ability to contribute to his defense did not warrant a new trial, as the evidence did not suggest he was incompetent during the original proceedings. Furthermore, the court concluded that Garcia could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel, as he could not show that any deficient performance by his counsel prejudiced his defense. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The case involves Ryan D. Rivera-Meister, who was charged with attempted intentional child abuse resulting in death after the 16-month-old child of his girlfriend was fatally injured while in his care. Rivera-Meister initially claimed the child fell from a bunk bed, but medical evidence suggested the injuries were inconsistent with such a fall. He was charged in 2017, fled to Guatemala, and was extradited back to Nebraska in 2022. He pleaded no contest to the amended charge and was sentenced to 40 to 50 years in prison.The Hall County District Court sentenced Rivera-Meister and credited him with 706 days for time served in Nebraska but denied his request for an additional 266 days for time spent in custody in Guatemala awaiting extradition. The court reasoned that his decision to flee and not return voluntarily justified denying the additional credit.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with Rivera-Meister and the State that he was entitled to the additional 266 days of credit for time served in Guatemala. The court held that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,106(1), an offender is entitled to credit for time spent in custody as a result of the charge for which the prison sentence is imposed, regardless of whether that custody was in another state or country. The court modified the sentence to include the additional 266 days, totaling 972 days of credit for time served. The court found no abuse of discretion in the length of the sentence imposed and affirmed the sentence as modified. View "State v. Rivera-Meister" on Justia Law

Kevin T. Kilmer was charged with first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony after allegedly killing Ruth Ann Wittmuss with an ax. Kilmer had been staying with Wittmuss and Michael Malone in a trailer house in Kilgore, Nebraska. On the night of the murder, Kilmer arrived at a friend's house covered in blood and admitted to hitting Wittmuss with an ax. Law enforcement found Wittmuss' body in a suitcase on the side of a road, and an autopsy confirmed she died from blunt force trauma to the head. Evidence collected from the crime scene, including blood and DNA, linked Kilmer to the murder.The Cherry County District Court jury found Kilmer guilty of both charges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and an additional 10 to 14 years for the use of a deadly weapon, with the sentences to be served consecutively. Kilmer appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he acted with deliberate and premeditated malice.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted that intent and premeditation can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's actions and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court found that the evidence, including Kilmer's motive, the nature of Wittmuss' injuries, and Kilmer's actions before and after the murder, supported the jury's finding of deliberate and premeditated malice.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Kilmer's convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. View "State v. Kilmer" on Justia Law

The appellant was charged with four counts of first-degree sexual assault, alleged to have occurred between January 1, 2004, and June 1, 2008. He filed a motion to quash and dismiss the charges, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired. The district court denied the motion, stating that the statute of limitations likely had not run but required a preliminary hearing to determine the ages of the victims. Before the preliminary hearing, the State amended the charges to include offenses from January 1, 2000, to June 1, 2008. The appellant eventually pled no contest to one count of first-degree sexual assault under a plea agreement.The district court accepted the plea after confirming that the appellant understood the charges, the penalties, and his rights. The court also confirmed that the appellant was competent to plead, despite his PTSD and not taking medication on the day of the plea hearing. The appellant was sentenced to 40 to 50 years in prison, with credit for time served. His trial counsel did not appeal, leading the appellant to file a pro se motion for postconviction relief, which was granted, allowing him to file a direct appeal.On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the appellant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for various reasons, including failing to file a motion to quash the amended information, not disclosing a health condition that impaired counsel’s ability, and not properly advising him of the consequences of his plea. The court found that the record did not support claims of ineffective assistance regarding the motion to quash, as the statute of limitations had not expired, and there was no ex post facto violation. The court also found that the appellant was adequately informed of the consequences of his plea and that his counsel was not deficient in this regard.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s acceptance of the plea and the sentence, finding no abuse of discretion or merit in the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Haas" on Justia Law

James R. Kalita was convicted in county court of second-degree criminal trespass and refusal to obey a lawful order after he brought a flagpole into the Nebraska State Capitol Building, which was against the building's regulations. Despite being informed by Capitol security and Nebraska State Patrol officers that poles were not permitted, Kalita refused to remove the flagpole or leave the premises, leading to his arrest.Kalita appealed to the District Court for Lancaster County, arguing that the statutes and regulations under which he was convicted were unconstitutional as applied to him and that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. The district court affirmed the county court's judgment, finding the evidence sufficient and rejecting the constitutional challenge.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that Kalita forfeited his constitutional challenge by failing to raise it in the county court. The court emphasized that constitutional issues must be specifically raised at the trial court level to be considered on appeal. The court also found that the evidence was sufficient to support Kalita's convictions, as he had clearly refused to obey a lawful order from the Nebraska State Patrol and remained in the Capitol building despite being informed that he was trespassing.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding Kalita's convictions for second-degree criminal trespass and refusal to obey a lawful order. View "State v. Kalita" on Justia Law

The case involves Riley Lenhart, who was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in the death of his 10-month-old daughter, M.L. On June 19, 2022, M.L. died from ligature strangulation while in Lenhart's care. Lenhart claimed he left M.L. briefly to shower, and upon returning, found her not breathing. Emergency personnel were unable to revive her. Lenhart was arrested and charged with intentional child abuse resulting in death.The District Court for Dawes County handled the trial. Before the trial, Lenhart successfully moved to exclude certain character evidence, including his status as a sex offender and the fact that a sexual assault examination was conducted on M.L. During the trial, a forensic pathologist mentioned the sexual assault examination, prompting Lenhart to object and move for a mistrial. The court struck the statement and instructed the jury to disregard it but denied the mistrial motion. Instead, the court ordered the State to stipulate that such examinations are routine and that no evidence of sexual assault was found. Lenhart objected to this stipulation.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motion, as the jury was instructed to disregard the improper statement, and it is presumed they followed this instruction. The court also found that any error in the stipulation was harmless, given the overwhelming evidence against Lenhart, including the cause of M.L.'s death, Lenhart's sole care of M.L. at the time, and his failure to call 911. The court affirmed Lenhart's conviction and sentence. View "State v. Lenhart" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with obstructing the administration of law in violation of a municipal ordinance. The incident occurred when law enforcement officers attempted to arrest the defendant's son, who had a felony warrant. The defendant, holding a large dog, approached the officers, yelled at them, and did not comply with their commands to step back. This behavior continued until the officers threatened to shoot the dog. The defendant also picked up his son's backpack despite orders to leave it, further interfering with the officers' duties.The County Court for Douglas County found the defendant guilty, concluding that his actions constituted willful and defiant refusals to comply with lawful commands, thereby obstructing the officers. The court relied on the language of the ordinance and referenced a similar case, State v. Ferrin, to support its findings. The defendant was fined $250 and ordered to pay court costs.On appeal, the District Court for Douglas County affirmed the conviction. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove intent, that the trial court improperly applied a different statute, and that his conviction violated due process and his First Amendment rights. The district court found that the evidence supported the conviction and that the trial court had not erred in its application of the law.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the defendant's actions interfered with the officers' duties and demonstrated intent to obstruct. The court also found no merit in the defendant's arguments regarding the application of a different statute and constitutional violations, noting that these issues were not properly raised in the lower courts. View "State v. Yah" on Justia Law

Deontae Rush appealed from convictions of first-degree murder and using a firearm to commit a felony. He had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and 25-35 years for the firearm offense, to be served consecutively. Rush challenged various evidentiary rulings made by the district court. He also argued that the lower court should have granted his motion for a mistrial due to statements made by the prosecutor during closing arguments. Rush further alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on numerous grounds. He also argued that the evidence was insufficient to show that he used a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decisions. It found no merit in most of the assignments of error, while it concluded that it could not resolve certain claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. The court noted that any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the weapons offense based on the evidence presented. It also noted that a trial court has significant discretion over matters such as evidentiary determinations and whether to grant a motion for a mistrial. Since it found no abuse of discretion, the Supreme Court did not disturb these decisions by the district court. View "State v. Rush" on Justia Law

A self-described "lay midwife" was charged by the State of Nebraska with practicing a profession without a credential after being ordered to cease and desist. The midwife, who did not hold a state-issued credential, provided prenatal and postnatal care and assisted with childbirth. The charges were based on her alleged violation of the Uniform Credentialing Act (UCA).In Madison County, the district court sustained the midwife's plea in abatement, finding that "nurse midwives" were not required to hold credentials under the UCA. The court also suggested that the UCA would be unconstitutionally vague if it required a credential for practicing "nurse midwifery." Similarly, in Douglas County, the district court sustained a plea in abatement on the same grounds, dismissing the charges against the midwife.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district courts had misconstrued the UCA. The court held that the UCA requires individuals to hold a credential to engage in practices such as attending childbirth and providing related care, which fall under the scope of medicine and surgery, advanced practice registered nursing, and certified nurse midwifery. The court also found that the evidence presented was sufficient to show probable cause that the midwife had committed the charged crime.The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district courts' orders sustaining the pleas in abatement and dismissing the charges. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of the midwife's motions to quash and demurrers. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The case involves Kolton Barnes, who was convicted of first-degree murder, intentional cruelty to an animal, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, two counts of negligent child abuse, and evidence tampering. The charges stemmed from the death of his fiancée, Kayla Matulka, and his dog, both found in their home. Barnes claimed self-defense, stating Matulka attacked him after killing the dog. The prosecution argued Barnes killed Matulka after she broke up with him.In the District Court for Saunders County, Nebraska, Barnes sought access to Matulka’s mental health records to support his defense. The court granted partial access but denied a motion to compel further records from an out-of-state insurer, citing jurisdictional issues and the sufficiency of already provided records. Barnes also moved to exclude evidence of prior threats he made to a former girlfriend, which the court allowed, finding it relevant to motive and intent. At trial, the jury found Barnes guilty on all counts except for the two counts of intentional child abuse, where he was found guilty of the lesser charge of negligent child abuse.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel further records, as Barnes had ample evidence of Matulka’s mental health issues. The court also upheld the admission of prior threat evidence, finding it relevant to Barnes' motive and intent. The court found no error in the exclusion of a document about demonic possession or in the admission of a timeline of cell phone activities. Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and due process violations were dismissed, as the court found no plain error. The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the murder conviction, and the sentences for use of a deadly weapon were not excessive. The court affirmed Barnes' convictions and sentences. View "State v. Barnes" on Justia Law