Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting Defendant from questioning the complaining witness, J.K., about her prior allegation against a doctor.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by prohibiting from asking J.K. about an allegation she made against her prenatal doctor regarding inappropriate touching during the course of a prenatal examination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's decision to exclude the evidence did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confront his accuser. View "State v. Ali" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-217, holding that the petition did not state a cognizable ground for relief.Appellant pled no contest to attempted first degree sexual assault and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his conviction and sentence were void. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to section 25-217. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred when it dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to section 25-217 because section 25-217 has no application to habeas corpus proceedings; and (2) upon de novo review, it was proper to dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus because none of the allegations in the petition set forth facts which, if true, would entitle Appellant to habeas relief. View "Childs v. Frakes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree and criminal conspiracy to commit first degree murder and his sentence of death, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error on appeal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no merit to Defendant's challenges to the death qualification of his jury; (2) the trial court did not err by refusing to sever the trials on the charges for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder; (3) the court’s release of the victim’s mother from sequestration after she testified was not an abuse of discretion; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for a mistrial and a new trial after a verbal outburst and act of self-harm in front of the jury; and (5) Defendant's constitutional challenges to Nebraska's sentencing scheme were unavailing. View "State v. Trail" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals extending a procedural remedy for "claims of official negligence" to an appeal that was purportedly lost due to an appointed postconviction counsel's actions, holding that the decision below extended State v. Parnell, 919 N.W.2d 900 (Neb. 2018), and State v. Jones, 950 N.W.2d 625 (Neb. 2020), beyond their applicable scope.In this criminal case, the court dismissed Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Appellant did not file an appeal within thirty days of the court's order. Appellant later filed a pro se "Verified Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Vacate and Reinstate Order Denying Motion for Postconviction Relief, asserting that his delay in filing the appeal was due the failure of his appointed counsel. The trial court dismissed the motion. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in its application of Parnell and Jones. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty, after a bench trial, of exploiting a vulnerable adult in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-386 and sentencing her to five years' probation, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.After a bench trial, Defendant, a licensed attorney, was convicted of exploitation of a vulnerable adult. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; (2) there was no merit to Defendant's argument that the State failed to prove the requisite criminal intent to convict her of exploiting a vulnerable adult; (3) there was nothing in the court's sentencing remarks that contradicted or undermined its prior verdict finding Defendant guilty; and (4) even if the trial court's conclusions of law were not as detailed as Defendant would have liked, that did not provide a basis for reversible error. View "State v. Vanderford" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the order of the county court denying Appellant's handgun appeal, holding that the lower courts did not err in denying the appeal.The Sarpy County sheriff's office denied Appellant's application for a handgun certificate pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 69-2404 and 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), determining that Appellant's previous conviction for third degree assault met the criteria for domestic violence under federal law. Appellant appealed, arguing that he had never been convicted of a crime of domestic violence. The county court denied the appeal, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion. View "Scalise v. Davis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Petitioner's petition for declaratory judgment under the Administrative Procedure Act and Nebraska's Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, holding that good time earned pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 83-1.107(2)(b) has no applicability to an inmate's parole eligibility date (PED).Petitioner, an inmate in the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) system, brought a petition for declaratory judgment arguing that good time credit earned pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 83-1,107(2)(b) applies to an inmate's PED. The district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that good time credit earned pursuant to section 83-107(2)(b) is applicable only to reduce an inmate's maximum sentence. View "Heist v. Neb. Dep't of Corrections" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court overruled the exception filed by the State in this exception proceeding after the district court granted Defendant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that there was no merit to the State's arguments.Shortly before the scheduled date for his trial Defendant moved for absolute discharge on the grounds that she had not been brought to trial before the running of the six-month speedy trial period under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207. The district court granted absolute discharge. The State then filed this exception proceeding, arguing that by agreeing to an initial trial date that was outside the sixth-month speedy trial period, Defendant consented to the excludable period of delay within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4)(b) or, alternatively, that the Defendant invited the error in scheduling. The Supreme Court overruled the exception, holding that the trial court correctly found that the State failed to bring Defendant to trial before the running of the statutory speedy trial period. View "State v. Space" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions relating to allegations of sexual assault of a child, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her assignments of error.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of eleven counts in four separate cases relating to allegations of sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of sixty-four to 102 years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not prejudiced by the procedure followed by the district court with respect to instruction No. 4; (2) the district court did not err in allowing the forensic interview program manager at a child advocacy center to testify as an expert on the issue of grooming; and (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's sentences. View "State v. Greer" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court properly found that Defendant's claims were either procedurally barred, insufficiently alleged, or affirmatively refuted by the record.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree murder, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, first degree assault, and possession fo a firearm by a prohibited person. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and trial error. The district court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to allege facts that would affirmatively show that he was entitled to no relief. View "State v. Lessley" on Justia Law