Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order dismissing Defendant's motion for postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant's postconviction motion was time barred.In his postconviction motion, Defendant argued that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance in four respects. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Defendant had failed to show his trial counsel performed deficiently and, therefore, dismissed the motion for postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, albeit on different grounds, holding that Defendant's postconviction motion was filed outside the one-year limitations period under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3001(4)(a) and thus was time barred. View "State v. Koch" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of knowing and intentional child abuse resulting in death and prison sentence of fifty-five to seventy-five years in prison, holding that there was no merit to any of Defendant's assignments of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in (1) overruling Defendant's motion to suppress; (2) overruling Defendant's plea in abatement; (3) overruling Defendant's motion to quash and rejecting her constitutional challenges; (4) finding Defendant guilty of intentional child abuse resulting in death; and (5) imposing Defendant's sentence. View "State v. Montoya" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and probationary sentence for possession of a controlled substance, holding that the district court did not err when it failed to grant Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found during a search of her vehicle and person, as well as statements Defendant made to law enforcement.On appeal, Defendant argued that the traffic stop concluded and a voluntary police-citizen encounter began before she consented to a search of her vehicle. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) this court has jurisdiction pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1912(2); and (2) the traffic stop terminated when the officer told Defendant she was free to leave and that what followed was a separate encounter not subject to the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not err by overruling Defendant's motion to suppress, motion to reconsider and vacate, and renewed motion to suppress. View "State v. Hartzell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of leaving the scene of an injury accident, holding that the district court did not err in failing to give Defendant's requested instruction regarding the choice of evils defense or in failing to grant a mistrial on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct.During trial, Defendant argued that leaving the scene of the collision was justified because he had to unload the cattle he had been hauling in order to avoid loss of or injury to the cattle. The trial court declined to instruct the jury as to the choice of evils defense, concluding that it was inapplicable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the choice of evils justification was inapplicable in this case; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for mistrial. View "State v. Schmaltz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court affirming Defendant's conviction of misdemeanor driving under the influence (DUI), holding that Defendant's allegations of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in affirming the county court's admission of evidence offered at trial that was not disclosed to him and erred in sentencing him because the prior conviction the court relied upon for a second offense was not disclosed to Defendant prior to sentencing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's arguments regarding discovery violations were rejected due to Defendant's failure to seek a continuance, and there was no prejudice owing to any belated disclosures on the State's part. View "State v. Hatfield" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant's motion to suppress the search of his cell phone; (2) the district court did not err in admitting eight photographic exhibits over Defendant's objections and in concluding that multiple photographs of the same wounds on the victim were not unfairly prejudicial; and (3) eight of Defendant's eighteen claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were either without merit or not alleged with sufficient particularity, and the Court was unable to resolve Defendant's remaining claims of ineffective assistance. View "State v. Stelly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to probation and imposing various terms of probation in connection with Defendant's plea of guilty to driving under the influence, second offense, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to modify one of the probation terms.The district court sentenced Defendant to jail for thirty days and probation for twenty-four months and revoked Defendant's driver's license for eighteen months. Defendant later filed a motion to modify the terms of his probation requesting that the district court remove the terms probation relating to firearms. The district court denied modification, finding that Defendant had not identified a material change in circumstances or any other reason that would entitle him to the relief sought. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that there was not a sufficient change in circumstances so as to entitle Defendant to a modification of the conditions of probation. View "State v. Paulsen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for electronically offering to perform oral sex upon a police decoy portraying a fourteen-year-old girl, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Neb. R. Evid. 404 evidence and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued (1) the trial court abused its discretion in admitting rule 404 evidence of a sexually explicit online chat with another underage woman, and (2) his solicitation of "eating you out" was not sufficient to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the rule 404 evidence was properly admitted as to motive and absence of mistake or accident; and (2) the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find the solicitation "indecent, lewd, lascivious, or obscene" to support the conviction. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for discharge on statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant was not entitled to discharge.The State filed an information against Defendant charging him with theft by receiving stolen property and other offenses. After the trial was continued several times Defendant filed a motion for discharge on statutory and constitutional speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed after applying the four factor-test set forth in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), holding that neither Defendant's statutory nor constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. View "State v. Lovvorn" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court affirming Defendant's conviction of driving under the influence with a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or higher, first offense, holding that, assuming a warrant for Defendant's blood draw was invalid, the good faith exception applied and exclusion of the blood evidence was not required.After a bench trial before the county court, Defendant appealed his conviction to the district court. Defendant argued that the county court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his blood test on the grounds that the affidavit supporting the warrant for the blood draw was insufficient to support a probable cause finding. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even assuming that the warrant was insufficient to support a finding of probable cause, the good faith exception set forth in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), applied; and (2) therefore, the district court did not err in affirming Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Kruse" on Justia Law