Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The case involved a defendant who was charged in two separate criminal complaints, filed by different prosecutors, for conduct arising out of the same incident. The first complaint, brought by a city prosecutor in county court, alleged violations of municipal ordinances—specifically assault and battery, and disorderly conduct. The defendant entered a no contest plea to disorderly conduct as part of a plea agreement, and the assault and battery charge was dismissed with prejudice. Shortly before this plea, the county attorney’s office had filed a separate complaint charging the defendant with felony assault based on the same incident. After the case was later amended to charge first degree felony assault, the defendant argued that prosecuting the felony charge would violate double jeopardy protections.In the District Court for Douglas County, the defendant filed a plea in bar, contending that double jeopardy attached to the dismissed municipal assault and battery charge, thus barring the subsequent felony prosecution. The district court denied the plea, finding that jeopardy never attached to the dismissed charge because the defendant did not plead guilty or face trial on that offense, and the dismissal did not entail a determination of the merits.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the plea in bar de novo. The court held that jeopardy did not attach to the municipal assault and battery charge because the defendant did not enter a plea to that charge, nor did the court make any factual findings regarding it. The court further explained that a dismissal with prejudice pursuant to a plea agreement does not amount to an acquittal or the attachment of jeopardy unless the court resolves factual elements of the offense. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the plea in bar, holding that double jeopardy protections did not bar the felony assault prosecution. View "State v. Holland" on Justia Law

Law enforcement responded to a situation at Christopher McKinney’s home after he threatened self-harm and subsequently engaged in an armed standoff. During the incident, Christopher pointed a shotgun at officers and made threats involving several firearms and large amounts of ammunition. Law enforcement executed search and arrest warrants, seizing numerous firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Christopher later pleaded no contest to a charge of terroristic threats, with other charges—including use of a firearm to commit a felony—dismissed as part of the agreement. Following his conviction and sentence, the State sought court authorization to destroy the seized firearms and ammunition.After Christopher’s direct appeal concluded, the State filed a petition in the District Court for Otoe County to destroy the seized property, claiming it had been used in the commission of a crime and was no longer needed as evidence. David McKinney, Christopher’s father, moved to intervene, asserting that Christopher had gifted him all interest in the seized property before sentencing. The State objected, arguing David had no ownership interest and thus lacked standing. The district court allowed David to intervene but ultimately ordered destruction of all seized property, finding that most items were derivative contraband used in the commission of a crime, and that Christopher could not transfer ownership while the property was in custody.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed whether David had standing and whether the property was properly classified as contraband. The Supreme Court held that David had standing because he claimed ownership. The Court affirmed the destruction order for all items except one firearm—the Marlin .17 HMR—which had not been used in the crime. As to that item, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine if a valid transfer to David occurred, which would determine proper disposition of that firearm. View "State v. McKinney" on Justia Law

A man was charged with multiple felonies after he fired gunshots at two social workers who approached his home in a marked government vehicle. Two days earlier, he had been involved in a physical altercation with two teenage girls at a community center, leading to misdemeanor assault charges. After that incident, he and his family experienced public scrutiny, and he reported feeling threatened by comments made by a crowd outside the community center. The day of the shooting, after a call from the mother of his children, two Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) employees arrived at his home to conduct a welfare check. His eldest son, who was not wearing his glasses, believed one of the men had a gun and relayed this to his father, who then fired two shots, injuring one of the social workers.The District Court for Lancaster County conducted a jury trial on the felonies; the defendant pleaded no contest to the misdemeanors. The district court refused to instruct the jury on self-defense or defense of others, concluding the defendant was the only aggressor and lacked an objectively reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary. The jury convicted the defendant of two counts of attempted first-degree assault and two counts of using a firearm to commit a felony. The court imposed consecutive sentences within statutory limits.On direct appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, the defendant argued the trial court erred in refusing self-defense instructions, imposed excessive sentences, and that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective. The Supreme Court held that there was no evidence supporting a reasonable belief in the immediate necessity to use deadly force, affirming the refusal to instruct on self-defense. It found the sentences were not an abuse of discretion. It rejected one ineffective assistance claim, found two others insufficiently specific, and concluded the last could not be resolved on the record. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "State v. Lopez" on Justia Law

This case involves a series of crimes committed over several days in Omaha, Nebraska, in June 2021, by three teenagers. The defendant was charged with 11 counts, including first degree murder, assault, discharging a firearm, theft, robbery, and weapons offenses. The crimes began with the armed theft of a white Volkswagen Jetta, which was later used in two drive-by shootings in rival gang neighborhoods, resulting in one death and several injuries. Shortly after, the group stole a Toyota Scion, and all three suspects were apprehended when law enforcement tracked the stolen vehicle. Key evidence included surveillance footage, forensic analysis of shell casings, cell phone data, and testimony from one co-defendant.The District Court for Douglas County consolidated the defendant’s trial with that of a co-defendant, over objections seeking separate trials and severance of theft-related charges. The court denied these motions, finding the crimes were part of a common scheme or plan, and that any prejudice could be addressed with jury instructions. During trial, the defense objected to the admission of evidence found in the Jetta after a break in police custody, and to police officers’ identifications of the defendant in surveillance footage, arguing improper foundation and opinion testimony. The court overruled these objections. The defendant’s request for a jury instruction clarifying that mere presence is insufficient for aiding and abetting liability was also denied.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court held that joinder of charges and defendants was proper, as the offenses were sufficiently connected and no compelling actual prejudice was demonstrated. It found the chain of custody for the evidence adequate and the admission of lay opinion testimony by police officers permissible. The court also determined that the jury instructions given were appropriate and not misleading. View "State v. White" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant was stopped by law enforcement officers in Seward County, Nebraska, after officers observed his vehicle turn without signaling and swerve as it drove. The officers approached the vehicle and observed signs of intoxication, including the smell of alcohol and the defendant’s slurred speech. The defendant admitted to drinking and was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI) and transported to the county detention center, where he submitted to a breath test. His blood alcohol content was measured at .131 grams per 210 liters of breath. After the breath test, an officer informed the defendant, incorrectly, that he could seek an independent chemical test only after being released, when in fact he had the statutory right to do so while still in custody.The County Court for Seward County denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the breath test results, finding that the officers had probable cause to stop the vehicle based on a traffic violation and did not hamper or prevent the defendant from obtaining an independent test. A bench trial resulted in a conviction for DUI and an open container violation. Upon appeal, the District Court for Seward County affirmed, concluding that the officer’s incorrect statement did not amount to a refusal or denial of the defendant’s statutory right to an independent test.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. It held that the officer’s mistaken or incomplete advisement regarding the timing of the independent test did not constitute a refusal to permit such a test under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 60-6,199. The court found the officers had probable cause for the initial stop, and the defendant’s statutory and constitutional rights were not violated. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Weber" on Justia Law

The case concerns a fatal stabbing involving a 14-year-old, Damore, who was charged with first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon. The incident began with an altercation between two groups of teenagers at a convenience store in Lincoln, Nebraska, which escalated when the victim’s vehicle was damaged. The victim’s mother went to Damore’s residence to address the damage, leading to a confrontation. The victim arrived, a physical altercation ensued, and Damore stabbed the victim twice, resulting in the victim’s death. Damore was subsequently charged and sought to have his case transferred from district court to juvenile court.After Damore was bound over to the District Court for Lancaster County, he filed a motion to transfer the case to juvenile court. The district court conducted a multi-day evidentiary hearing, considering testimony from various witnesses and extensive documentary evidence. The district court made specific findings and evaluated each statutory factor required by Nebraska law, ultimately finding that most factors supported retaining the case in district court and denying the motion to transfer. Damore timely appealed.The Nebraska Court of Appeals reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed, concluding that the lower court’s findings and ultimate decision were not clearly untenable. Damore then sought further review, arguing that the Court of Appeals misstated and misapplied the abuse of discretion standard, and incorrectly reviewed the case.The Supreme Court of Nebraska addressed Damore’s arguments, clarified the abuse of discretion standard, and explained that the Court of Appeals had properly applied the standard. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not misstate or misapply the abuse of discretion standard and affirmed its decision, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying Damore’s motion to transfer the case to juvenile court. View "State v. Damore" on Justia Law

An inmate confined in a Nebraska correctional facility struck a correctional officer twice in the head after a confrontation in the office area of the prison unit. The events were recorded by security cameras, though key moments were obscured from view. Testimony established that the inmate was agitated, refused repeated lawful commands to back away from the doorway, and escalated the situation until the officer unholstered and deployed pepper spray. The inmate then punched the officer and fled. Both parties presented testimony regarding prison policies and their perspectives on the altercation, including conflicting accounts about the timing of the pepper spray’s deployment and the inmate’s motivations.The case was tried in the District Court for Lancaster County, where the defendant requested a jury instruction on self-defense, arguing that the officer’s use of pepper spray constituted unlawful force. The State opposed, emphasizing that prison policies permitted the use of pepper spray in response to escalating threats and that the defendant’s noncompliance with commands was unjustified. The district court found the evidence did not support a legally cognizable claim of self-defense, refused the instruction, submitted the case to the jury, and accepted a guilty verdict for assault by a confined person. The defendant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, consecutive to his current sentence.Reviewing the appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court concluded the lower court correctly refused the self-defense instruction because the defendant unjustifiably placed himself in harm’s way by ignoring lawful commands. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for conviction and that the sentence was within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "State v. Liech" on Justia Law

Trevor M. Jones was charged with theft by deception in November 2023. Almost a year after the charge was filed, Jones moved for absolute discharge, claiming that the State of Nebraska failed to bring him to trial within the time required by Nebraska’s statutory speedy trial provisions. The District Court for Lancaster County held a hearing and agreed that Jones’s statutory speedy trial rights had been violated, granting his motion for absolute discharge and dismissing the charge.Following this decision, the State sought to appeal the district court’s order. Instead of following the procedures set out for exception proceedings under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2315.01, which specifically governs State appeals in criminal cases, the State simply filed a notice of appeal under the general appellate statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912. The Nebraska Court of Appeals questioned whether it had jurisdiction, since the State had not complied with the specific procedural requirements for exception proceedings. After seeking input from the State and considering a motion for summary dismissal from Jones, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that the State’s failure to follow the statutory process deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction. The State’s motion for rehearing was denied.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the matter on further review. The Supreme Court held that, under established precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis, the State may only obtain appellate review of a district court’s order granting absolute discharge in a criminal case by strictly following the procedures outlined in § 29-2315.01. The State’s failure to do so meant the appellate courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of the State’s appeal. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. Following affirmance of his convictions on direct appeal, he filed a timely motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and a Brady violation based on counsel’s failure to present exculpatory evidence and a witness. The defendant submitted three documents on the same day: his motion, a memorandum brief with an affirmation concerning the brief, and a separate affirmation, filed with a motion for appointment of counsel, that expressly verified the facts in his postconviction motion.The District Court for Hall County denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, citing two independent grounds: lack of verification and substantive defects in the motion. The court interpreted the affirmation attached to the memorandum brief as not verifying the motion for postconviction relief and did not address the effect of the separate affirmation attached to the motion for appointment of counsel. Alternatively, the court found that the defendant’s claim was insufficient on the merits, characterizing the allegations as mere conclusions of fact or law without supporting facts.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case for plain error because the defendant’s brief failed to properly assign errors as required by court rules. The Supreme Court held that a separate, properly executed verification, filed simultaneously with a postconviction motion and directed exclusively to that motion, satisfies the statutory verification requirement. However, the court found no plain error in the District Court’s denial of relief, concluding that the defendant’s motion did not allege sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief. View "State v. Anthony" on Justia Law

The case concerns the prosecution of a father charged with first and third degree sexual assault of his 5-year-old biological daughter. The child disclosed the alleged abuse to her older brother, who then informed their mother. The day after the disclosure, the father visited the mother’s home and, upon hearing the brother repeat the accusation, physically assaulted and threatened to kill the brother if he repeated the allegation. The mother delayed reporting the incident to law enforcement for about a month. During pretrial proceedings, the court excluded evidence of another accusation involving a different child but permitted testimony about the father's assault and threat against the brother.Following a jury trial in the District Court for Douglas County, the defendant was acquitted of first degree sexual assault but convicted of third degree sexual assault of a child and sentenced to imprisonment and post-release supervision. He appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, arguing that admission of evidence regarding the assault and threat was unduly prejudicial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, reasoning that omitting context about the accusation involving the other child created a misleading impression and unfairly prejudiced the defendant, warranting a new trial.On further review, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the defendant’s assault and threat toward the brother. The Court held that this evidence was probative of consciousness of guilt and explained the mother’s delay in reporting the crime. It further determined that any omission regarding the other child’s accusation did not rise to the level of plain error, especially since defense counsel had sought its exclusion. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded with directions to affirm the conviction and sentence. View "State v. Cartwright" on Justia Law