Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the decision of the county court overruling Appellant's motion for absolute discharge pursuant to the speedy trial statutes, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.In his motion for absolute discharge Appellant argued that the time for trial ran and that the district court erred in concluding that two time periods were excludable under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4). The county court overruled the motion. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the county court's overruling of Defendant's motion for absolute discharge. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's plea-based convictions, holding that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the record as a whole demonstrated that his pleas were entered voluntarily and intelligently.Defendant was charged with eleven felonies. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered a plea of no contest to three charges. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that his no contest pleas were not entered freely, intelligently, voluntarily, understandingly, and knowingly. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in finding that Defendant's no contest pleas were voluntarily and intelligently entered because the record did not affirmatively show that Defendant understood his rights or that he expressly waived them. View "State v. Mead" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this exception proceeding brought by the State following a trial in which Defendant was acquitted of use of a weapon to commit a felony and second-degree assault, holding that the issues presented were not appropriate for resolution in this exception proceeding.During the underlying trial, the State objected to the district court's instructing the jury on self-defense and defense of property, but the district court instructed the jury on both affirmative defenses. The jury subsequently acquitted Defendant on all counts. The State applied for leave to docket an exception proceeding. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because there was no dispute that Defendant was "placed legally in jeopardy" in court for purposes of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2316, this Court had no power to alter the judgment of the district court. View "State v. Valadez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the sentencing court calculating, in this case, jail credit under Neb. Rev. Stat. 47-503, holding that there was no error in the sentencing court's jail credit calculation.On October 22, 2021, Defendant was arrested and detained on the subject felony charges (the Hall County case) and was released from custody. On October 26, 2021, in a related case, Defendant was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Hall County jail. Defendant was continuously detained in the Hall County jail until his sentencing on May 24, 2022. After sentencing, Defendant moved for an order nunc pro tunc requesting additional jail credit. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the district court's determination that Defendant was entitled to ninety-four days of jail credit. View "State v. Castillo-Rodriguez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of theft by deception, a Class IV, felony, and sentencing her to fourteen months' imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.Following jury deliberations, the jury found Defendant guilty of theft by deception. On the amended verdict form, the jury circled the final range of values finding that the property Defendant obtained had a value between $1,500 to $4,999.99, and Defendant was convicted accordingly. On appeal, Defendant argued that the jury must unanimously agree upon a single, specific number in determining the value of property obtained by theft. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding (1) there was no prejudicial error in the supplemental instruction given by the district court or in supplying the amended verdict form; and (2) defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "State v. Fernandez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and for possession of a controlled substance without a tax stamp, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred in overruling his motion in limine and admitting evidence including the controlled substance that had been in the possession and under the control of a state patrol evidence technician who was later indicted for theft of controlled substances under her control. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to establish foundation for admission of the challenged evidence; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Osborne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for a new trial following her conviction of possession of a controlled substance, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by disregarding the parties' stipulation that there were sufficient grounds to sustain the motion for a new trial.Defendant appealed after she was convicted but then voluntarily dismissed her appeal upon being informed that an evidence technician who may have been responsible for drug-related evidence in her case had been criminally indicted. Together with the State, Defendant filed a joint motion and stipulation for new trial but did not support the motion with any evidence. The district court overruled the motion for not complying with the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2102. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) due process was not implicated by the district court's decision to disregard the conclusory stipulation that a new trial should be granted for Defendant; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion finding that the facts did not support a new trial. View "State v. Blocher" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing Defendant for use of an electronic communication device to commit sexual assault and enticement, holding that the district court did not err in its instructions to the jury or in imposing sentences.Defendant was convicted and sentenced to fifteen to twenty years for use of an electronic communication device to commit sexual assault and twenty-three to twenty-four months' imprisonment for enticement by an electronic communication device. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, contrary to Defendant's arguments on appeal the district court did not err in either refusing to instruct the jury on entrapment or in imposing excessive sentences. View "State v. Hines" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of intentional child abuse resulting in death and making terroristic threats, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other claims of error, that the district court failed to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter and that this error constituted structural error depriving him of due process. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to change venue; and (2) Defendant was not prejudiced by the district court's refusal to give a requested instruction on involuntary manslaughter, and therefore, reversal was not required. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for absolute discharge upon determining that a forty-two-day continuance granted at the State's request was excluded from the speedy trial calculation, holding that the district court did not err in denying the motion.On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court was bound by a prior oral ruling that the speedy trial clock would run during the State's continuance unless it specifically addressed the prior order before it could determine whether the State's continuance was excluded from the speedy trial calculation under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the period of the State's continuance was excluded and in denying Defendant's motion for discharge. View "State v. Nelson" on Justia Law