Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment, holding that there was no error.Defendant, a criminal defense attorney, was arrested following his purchase of cocaine from his client during the course of a controlled delivery set up by the Western Nebraska Intelligence and Narcotics Group. The district court found Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and overruled his motion for a new trial. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not err in finding sufficient evidence to convict Defendant; and (2) did not err in denying a new trial based on evidence that was insufficient to warrant a new trial. View "State v. Worthman" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying Defendant's motion seeking to vacate and correct his sentence for driving under the influence, which Defendant received almost nine years earlier, holding that the county court did not err.In 2008, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, third offense. In 2010, Defendant's probation was revoked, and he was resentenced to a jail term, a fine, and a fifteen-year license revocation. No appeal was taken. Nine years later, Defendant filed a motion to reopen the case and vacate the previous sentencing order, asserting that the sentencing order improperly failed to include an order pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.01. The county court denied the motion, and the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that nine years after the judgment and conviction became final the county court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate Defendant's motion to vacate and correct his sentence. View "State v. McAleese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance and finding him to be a habitual criminal, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Defendant was arrested after a police officer discovered methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in Defendant's vehicle and his person. After his conviction, Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress and finding him to be a habitual criminal, and asserting that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion and that Defendant's ineffective assistance claims were either without merit or not alleged with sufficient particularity. View "State v. Drake" on Justia Law