Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying postconviction relief sought by Appellant, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a timely pro se motion for postconviction relief alleging that his trial counsel had been ineffective in challenging the admissibility and weight of the State's DNA evidence presented at trial. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence demonstrated that defense counsel's performance was the product of reasonable trial strategy; and (2) Appellant failed to show that his trial counsel performed deficiently in their treatment of the probability statistic admitted at trial. View "State v. Ellis" on Justia Law

Kearney Officer Newell, dispatched to an apartment, spoke with J.S., who reported that upon leaving his garden-level apartment, he saw a man crouched down by a window to the apartment’s bathroom. J.S. did not mention seeing the individual holding a cell phone. J.S. showed Newell the path the person took in leaving. Approximately half a block from the apartment J.S. discovered a cell phone and handed it to Newell. Newell completed an affidavit. asking the judge for permission to examine the cell phone for evidence of the crime of unlawful intrusion on September 25, 2018. The search conducted pursuant to the warrant revealed multiple images of women in various states of undress and led to McGovern. Based on what was found, a second warrant was obtained in another jurisdiction. McGovern was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the third degree, and recording a person in a state of undress.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. The first search warrant was supported by probable cause and was sufficiently particular and because law enforcement reasonably saw evidence of a different crime during the initial search, the court did not err in overruling a suppression motion. The overall sentencing was not an abuse of discretion. View "State v. McGovern" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part an order of the district court affirming the county court's decision to overrule Defendant's motion for absolute discharge on statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds, holding that this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review one claim.After he was arrested Defendant filed a motion for absolute discharge alleging violations of his statutory and constitutional speedy trial rights. The county court overruled the motion, finding that Defendant's previously-filed pretrial motions had stopped the speedy trial clock. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) the State met its burden of proving that time periods were excludable under Neb. Gen. Laws 29-1207(4); and (2) this Court lacked appellate jurisdiction to review Defendant's claim that he was entitled to absolute discharge under constitutional speedy trial grounds. View "State v. Webb" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree sexual assault, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in finding sufficient evidence to find him guilty and instructing the jury as to the definition of sexual penetration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no merit to Defendant's sufficiency of the evidence argument; and (2) there was no error in the court's instructions to the jury regarding the term "penetration." View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that $18,000 in cash be forfeited to the State after finding that the State had shown by clear and convincing evidence that the cash was used or intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Christopher Bouldin, from whom the cash was seized by a law enforcement officer during a traffic stop, argued that the district court applied an incorrect standard of proof and that there was insufficient evidence to order the forfeiture. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court applied the standard of proof required by the governing statute; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's finding that the $18,000 was subject to forfeiture. View "State v. $18,000" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of second degree murder and sentence of a period of incarceration of no less than sixty years and no more than life, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to one count of second degree murder. Under the plea agreement, the State agreed to make a recommendation of a sentence of twenty years. After she was sentenced, Defendant brought this appeal, arguing that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by failing to make a sentencing recommendation consistent with the plea agreement and claiming that the sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor's remarks regarding sentencing did not breach the plea agreement and were not improper; and (2) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Cooke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the portion of a resentencing order that revoked Defendant's post-release supervision and incarcerated him in the county jail for a term of nine months, holding that the court erred in denying Defendant credit for future "good time."On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court violated Neb. Rev. Stat. 47-502 in concluding that he did not qualify for good time credit. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated that portion of the court's sentence, holding that the district court lacked statutory authority to order that Defendant could not qualify for good time credit. View "State v. Knight" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of four counts of first degree sexual assault and his sentence of concurrent terms of five years' probation for each conviction, holding that there was no error.The State appealed, arguing that the district court erred by ordering excessively lenient sentences. Defendant cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict, denying his motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and refusing his proposed jury instruction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing Defendant's proposed jury instructions; (2) Defendant's sentences were not excessively lenient; and (3) there was no plain error in the district court's finding of prima facie evidence to deny Defendant's motion for a directed verdict. View "State v. Pauly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, holding that Defendant failed to show that he was entitled to relief on his claims of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in concluding that he was competent to stand trial and erred in admitting evidence that Defendant alleged was obtained in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's conclusion that Defendant was competent to stand trial; and (2) there was no merit to Defendant's second and third assignments of error. View "State v. Surber" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sustaining the State's motion to dismiss this action brought by Defendant seeking DNA testing, holding that there was no error.In 1988, a jury convicted Defendant of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. In 2016, Defendant filed a motion requesting DNA testing on the victim's panties and on the steering wheel cover and floor mats of his car. The court sustained Defendant's request for DNA testing on those items and appointed counsel to represent him. After receiving the test results, the court denied relief under the DNA Testing Act and sustained the State's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and it did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's motion to dismiss. View "State v. Buckman" on Justia Law