Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the restitution component of Defendant's sentence, holding that the county court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution, but remanded the matter with directions to modify the written judgment to conform to the pronounced sentence.Defendant was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident and reckless driving after crashing into the victim's unoccupied vehicle and fleeing the scene by foot. The county court ordered restitution in the amount of $10,347, the cost of repairing the vehicle. The district court affirmed. Defendant appealed, arguing the district court erred in affirming the restitution order because there was insufficient evidence of actual damages to warrant the restitution and because he was not capable of paying the restitution ordered. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case, holding (1) the county court did not abuse its discretion in its calculation of the amount of the victim's "actual damages"; (2) the county court did not abuse its discretion in its consideration of Defendant's ability to pay the sentence of restitution; and (3) there was plain error in the county court's failure to conform the written judgment to the pronounced judgment. View "State v. Street" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for second degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony, holding that there was no abuse in the trial proceedings.Specifically, the Court held (1) any error in the admission of statements Defendant made during two interviews was harmless, and the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress a letter to his sister; (2) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress evidence from the search of his cell phone; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it prohibited Defendant from presenting evidence regarding the victim’s mental health and use of alcohol and prescription drugs; (4) the district court did not err when it denied Defendant the right to cross-examine a witness on issues the court determined to lack probative value; and (5) the district court did not err when it allowed evidence that results of certain DNA tests were uninterpretable. View "State v. Said" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and sentence of a term of incarceration not less than two years nor more than three years, holding that the convictions were supported by sufficient evidence and that there was no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in permitting the State to recall the victim's mother; (2) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to dismiss; (3) there was sufficient evidence to find Defendant guilty of negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury; (4) there was sufficient evidence to find Defendant guilty of negligent child abuse; and (5) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Williams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the juvenile court adjudicating Abigail G.'s son, Vladimir G., to be a child within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(3)(a), holding that although Abigail could invoke her Fifth Amendment right not to testify in this adjudication, any error on the part of the juvenile court in requiring her testimony was not reversible.During the adjudication hearing, Abigail objected to testifying based on Fifth Amendment grounds. The court overruled Abigail's objection. After the hearing, the county court filed an order finding Vladimir to be a child within the meaning of section 43-247(3)(a). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if the court erred in failing to determine that at least part of Abigail's testimony was incriminating and therefore protected by Abigail's invocation of her Fifth Amendment privilege, such error was not reversible because there was sufficient evidence to support the adjudication without such testimony and because Abigail's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the adjudication that Vladimir was a child within the meaning of section 43-247(3)(a). View "In re Interest of Vladimir G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant challenged the State's use of exhibit 7 to prove that Defendant had a prior felony conviction. Specifically, Defendant argued that because exhibit 7 did not affirmatively show that he had or waived counsel at the time of his guilty plea in the prior case, exhibit 7 should not have been admitted into evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction; and (2) the district court did not err in admitting into evidence certified court records showing that Defendant had counsel at the time he was sentenced for his prior conviction but was silent as to whether he had counsel at the time he entered his plea. View "State v. Vann" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal challenging the order of the district court granting Defendant the right to proceed with his criminal appeal in forma pauperis, holding that the order was not a judgment nor was it a final order.Defendant entered a no contest plea to robbery. After Defendant was sentenced he filed his notice of appeal. The district court later entered an order finding Defendant was entitled to court-appointed appellate counsel. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court held that it had no jurisdiction over the State's interlocutory appeal. Defendant then filed an application to proceed with his appeal from the conviction and sentence in forma pauperis. The court granted the application. The State appealed the district court's approval of Defendant's application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal. View "State v. Fredrickson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for aiding and abetting robbery and for aiding and abetting first degree assault, holding that Defendant's assignments of error were either without merit or could not be considered in this appeal.Defendant was convicted in a second jury trial after his first trial ended in a deadlocked jury and a mistrial was declared. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in the first trial by failing to ask the jury whether it was deadlocked on each count and when it overruled Defendant's plea in bar filed after the declaration of a mistrial and before the second trial. Defendant further claimed that in the second trial, (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a new trial, (2) the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, (3) counsel was ineffective, (4) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction, and (5) the trial court imposed excessive sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that some of Defendant's allegations of error could not be considered in this appeal and that, as to the remaining allegations, the district court did not err or abuse its discretion. View "State v. Price" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's plea-based conviction for third degree domestic assault, attempted tampering with a witness or informant, and violating a protection order, holding that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.On appeal, Defendant asserted that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move to continue the plea in abatement, failing to file a plea in abatement, failing to move the trial court to require the State to produce the alleged victim for deposition and exclude the alleged victim as a witness, failing to move to suppress Defendant's statement, and counseling Defendant to enter a plea. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to show that his counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for second degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and other crimes, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress or in declining to sever certain charges and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in failing to suppress statements Defendant made to law enforcement and cell phone data acquired pursuant to a search warrant; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Defendant's motion to sever the two counts of tampering with a witness from the other charges; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support the verdicts. View "State v. Benson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the trial court erred in determining that one of Appellant's claims was procedurally barred but that, nonetheless, Appellant was not entitled to relief.Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, attempted first degree, murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. In his postconviction motion, Appellant asserted claims of trial court error, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district court dismissed the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing, concluding that all of Appellant's claims were procedurally barred because they were known or knowable at the time of his direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in determining that Appellant's ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claims were procedurally barred, but Appellant failed to show that appellate counsel was ineffective; and (2) the district court did not err in dismissing the remaining claims without an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Parnell" on Justia Law