Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for forensic DNA testing pursuant to Nebraska DNA Testing Act, thus rejecting Appellant’s assignments of error.Appellant was convicted of kidnapping, use of a firearm to commit kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping. Two years later, Appellant filed his motion for forensic DNA testing. The district court denied the motion, finding that the items Appellant wanted to test were no longer in the State’s possession and had been destroyed before the motion was filed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the State did not destroy evidence in bad faith or in violation of Appellant’s due process rights under the United States Constitution. View "State v. Betancourt-Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief following an evidentiary hearing.Appellant was convicted of second degree murder under a theory of aiding and abetting, among other crimes. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Appellant then filed a timely motion for postconviction relief alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in failing to find that Appellant’s trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective; (2) the trial court did not err in failing to make rulings on certain claims raised in Appellant’s postconviction motion; and (3) Appellant’s argument that postconviction counsel provided effective assistance at the evidentiary hearing was without merit. View "State v. McGuire" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing or the appointment of counsel on the basis that the motion was filed outside the one-year limitations period set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-3001.Defendant was convicted of robbery and possession of a deadly weapon by a felon. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging four claims for relief. The district court dismissed the motion, finding that the motion was filed outside the one-year limitations period. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing, appoint counsel, and grant postconviction relief where the motion for postconviction relief was outside the one-year limitations period set forth in section 29-3001(4)(e). View "State v. Epp" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s jury convictions and sentences for first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and possession of a controlled substance. The Court held that the trial court did not err in (1) denying Defendant’s motion to sever count IV from the amended information, (2) finding that Defendant’s conviction of first degree murder was supported by competent evidence; and (3) denying Defendant’s motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. Further, trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "State v. Cotton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the court of appeals that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that K.M. committed first degree sexual assault under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.The separate juvenile court adjudicated K.M. as being a juvenile who committed an act that would constitute a felony by committing first degree sexual assault based on the victim’s lack of capacity. The court of appeals concluded that the juvenile court erred in finding that K.M. subjected the victim to sexual penetration because the State failed to prove that K.M. knew or should have known that the victim was mentally or physically incapable of resisting or appraising the nature of his conduct. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State failed to prove that the victim actually lacked the capacity to consent. View "In re Interest of K.M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant postconviction relief after an evidentiary hearing mandated by the Court’s decision in the first appeal.Appellant pled guilty to first degree murder. Appellant later sought postconviction relief, claiming that DNA evidence had been planted. The district court denied relief, concluding that Appellant’s claim was procedurally barred. The Supreme Court remanded, determining that Appellant’s claim was not procedurally barred and that Appellant alleged facts which, if proved, could constitute an infringement of his constitutional rights. Appellant then filed an amended motion for postconviction relief alleging, among other claims, that his constitutional rights were violated by the planting of DNA evidence. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Appellant’s amended motion for postconviction relief for failure to meet his burden of proof. The Supreme Court (1) vacated and set aside the district court’s order granting leave to file an amended motion for postconviction relief and the portion of its order concerning those claims which were outside the scope of the Court’s mandate; and (2) affirmed in all other respects the district court’s order denying postconviction relief, holding that Appellant’s remaining claim was without merit. View "State v. Henk" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Keshaud Hunt’s motion to transfer his case charging him with multiple felonies arising from two armed robberies to juvenile court. Hunt was fifteen years old when he committed the offenses underlying the charges. The Court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Hunt’s request for disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile Code and imposition of consecutive prison sentences. The Court held (1) the district court’s basis for retaining jurisdiction over Hunt was supported by appropriate evidence, and therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to transfer the case to juvenile court; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the sentences imposed. View "State v. Hunt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Keshaud Hunt’s motion to transfer his case charging him with multiple felonies arising from two armed robberies to juvenile court. Hunt was fifteen years old when he committed the offenses underlying the charges. The Court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Hunt’s request for disposition under the Nebraska Juvenile Code and imposition of consecutive prison sentences. The Court held (1) the district court’s basis for retaining jurisdiction over Hunt was supported by appropriate evidence, and therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to transfer the case to juvenile court; and (2) there was no abuse of discretion in the sentences imposed. View "State v. Hunt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court granting relief to Appellant in the form of a new sentencing hearing.Appellant was sentenced in 1974 to life imprisonment for a murder he committed when he was seventeen years old. After Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and State v. Mantich, 842 N.W.2d 716 (2014), were decided, Appellant filed a postconviction motion seeking a new sentencing hearing. The district court resentenced Appellant to 110 to 126 years in prison, with credit for time served. The court stated that Appellant would be eligible for parole after serving fifty-five years. Appellant appealed, arguing that the district court imposed an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in resentencing Appellant to 110 to 126 years in prison. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the separate juvenile court transferring Steven S.’s case to county court, holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the transfer.The State charged Steven, a juvenile, with escape and simultaneously filed a motion to transfer Steven’s case from juvenile court to county court. The juvenile court concluded that the State had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the matter should be transferred to county court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, upon the Court’s de novo review of the record, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that Steven’s case be transferred to county court. View "In re Interest of Steven S." on Justia Law