Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of the crime of assisting suicide, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings.Defendant was convicted of assisting the suicide of his girlfriend. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in admitting the testimony of a forensic pathologist who performed the decedent's autopsy and in admitting text messages between Defendant and his romantic acquaintance and that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the forensic pathologist's testimony regarding the findings of the post mortem examination of the decedent; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the text messages; and (3) the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to sustain a conviction for assisting suicide. View "State v. Stubbendieck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's sentence imposed as a result of his revocation from post-release supervision, holding that the term of imprisonment imposed by the court was within the statutory range and was not an abuse of discretion.Defendant absconded from post-release supervision and failed to appear at the hearing on the State's motion for revocation. Defendant was arrested and spent ninety-eight days in jail prior to revocation. The lower court found Defendant guilty of the allegations set forth within the motion to revoke post-release supervision and ordered Defendant to serve a term of imprisonment of 365 days in the county jail with zero days' credit for time served. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in extending his remaining term of post-release supervision upon revocation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not extend Defendant's term of post-release supervision, and therefore, Defendant's term of imprisonment was valid; (2) the term of imprisonment was within the statutory range; and (3) the court did not err in denying Defendant's request for jail time credit. View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of enticement by electronic communication, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-833, and allowed the parties' stipulation to remand because the district court failed to instruct the jury in a manner that required it to consider whether Defendant knew that the recipient was under sixteen years of age.Although the parties stipulated to remand in this case, the Supreme Court addressed the stipulation in an opinion because it had not previously considered the precise issue. The Supreme Court allowed the stipulation, reversed the district court's judgment, and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding (1) where the prosecution under section 28-833 involves a minor child rather than a decoy, a defendant's knowledge that the recipient is under age sixteen is a material element of the crime of enticement by electronic communication device; and (2) the court erred in instructing the jury on the material elements of enticement by electronic communication device, and the error was prejudicial. View "State v. Paez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying without an evidentiary hearing Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, holding that the district court did not err in denying postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. In his postconviction motion, Appellant alleged that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that counsel provided effective assistance and that the district court did not err in denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Martinez" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence for robbery, holding that none of Defendant’s argument on appeal warranted reversal of his conviction.Specifically, the Court held (1) the district court did not err when it admitted into evidence a note that was found in what Defendant claimed was an improper search of his person; (2) the district court did not err when it determined that Defendant was competent to stand trial and for sentencing; (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant; and (5) as to Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the claims were either without merit, not sufficiently stated, or could not be reviewed on direct appeal. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

In this action for declaratory judgment the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the district court finding that the City of Imperial, Nebraska was financially responsible for $436 in medical costs incurred by a person who was arrested, holding that declaratory judgment was not available.An arrestee filed this declaratory judgment seeking a determination that the City was solely responsible for the medical expenses the arrestee incurred when he was required to submit to a physical examination before being placed in jail. The district court agreed that the City was responsible for the arrestee’s medical costs. The court of appeals reversed, determining that Chase County, Nebraska was the responsible party. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that declaratory judgment was not available due to the lack of a justiciable controversy between the parties. The Court remanded the cause with directions to vacate the district court’s judgment. View "Chase County v. City of Imperial" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granting Defendant’s motion to vacate his sentence and withdraw the plea pursuant to the common-law procedure recognized in State v. Gonzalez, 830 N.W.2d 504 (2013), holding that the common-law procedure was not available to Defendant as a matter of law.Defendant pleaded no contest to second degree assault. After completing his sentence, Defendant moved to vacate his sentence and withdraw his plea pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Gonzalez. In his motion, Defendant alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to advise him of the deportation consequences of his plea-based conviction. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court erred in granting Defendant’s common-law motion because he had a remedy under the Nebraska Postconviction Act. View "State v. Jerke" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences for first degree sexual assault of a child, incest with a person under eighteen years of age, and third degree sexual assault of a child, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims raised on appeal.Specifically, the Court held (1) the age classifications defining sexual assault of a child in Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.01(1)(a) and associated mandatory sentence in Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.01(2) are not unconstitutional; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its challenged evidentiary rulings; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; and (4) Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Hibler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s imposition of an eight-month jail term upon revoking Defendant’s post-release supervision, holding that the district court’s order imposing a term of eight months’ imprisonment was not an abuse of discretion.After pleading guilty to a Class IV felony, Defendant was sentenced to twenty months’ imprisonment followed by twelve months’ post-release supervision. After the period of post-release supervision began, Defendant admitted to violating several conditions. The district court then revoked the post-release supervision and imposed a term of eight months’ imprisonment in county jail. On appeal, Defendant argued that the imposition of an eight-month jail term resulted in his imprisonment for a total of twenty-eight months for a Class IV felony, which exceeded the maximum sentence of twenty-four months’ imprisonment authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-105. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) when a court has revoked post-release supervision the maximum term of imprisonment that can be imposed is governed exclusively by Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2268(2) and does not depend on the maximum sentence of initial imprisonment authorized under section 28-105; and (2) Defendant's term of eight months’ imprisonment was within the maximum term authorized by section 29-2268(2) an was not an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Wal" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence, fifth offense, and aggravated driving under the influence (DUI), fifth offense, holding that Defendant’s trial counsel provided effective assistance and that Defendant’s sentence was not excessive.The primary issue on appeal was whether Defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective by failing to offer at an enhancement hearing available evidence that purportedly would have established that the State was precluded from relitigating a Wisconsin court’s determination that a prior conviction was invalid for enhancement purposes. The Supreme Court held (1) issue preclusion does not apply to sentence enhancement proceedings, and therefore, Defendant was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to offer into evidence at the enhancement hearing the Wisconsin motion to preclude; and (2) the district court did not err by imposing excessive sentences. View "State v. Spang" on Justia Law