Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction for incest but vacated his sentence and remanded for resentencing due to plain error in connection with sentencing.Appellant entered a no contest plea to incest. The district court sentenced Defendant to four to four years’ imprisonment, with credit for eleven days served, and a term of two years’ postrelease supervision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding (1) the district court’s incorrect advisement to Appellant regarding the collateral Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) consequence of his plea did not invalidate his plea or warrant the relief of withdrawal; and (2) the district court failed to complete the SORA notification requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4007, which the court was mandated to do in this case, and therefore, the case must be remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Lane" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief, holding that Appellant failed to allege sufficient facts supporting the majority of his claims and that his remaining claims were without merit.Appellant pled no contest to first degree sexual assault and was sentenced to ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment with credit for time served. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Appellant then filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, concluding that Appellant’s claims were either insufficiently pled or without merit. The court also denied Appellant’s request for appointment of postconviction counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant did not allege facts sufficient to entitle him to an evidentiary hearing on his postconviction claim; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to appoint counsel. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree murder, manslaughter, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, holding that Defendant’s allegations of error were without merit.On appeal, Defendant argued that evidence obtained pursuant to an alleged invalid warrant should have been excluded at his jury trial and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Defendant’s first assignment of error was without merit; and (2) there was no merit to any of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. View "State v. Nolt" on Justia Law

An interlocutory appeal is not authorized under Nebraska’s “three strikes” prison litigation statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-3401, which prohibits a prisoner who has previously filed at least three frivolous civil actions from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) without leave of court.In this action alleging civil rights violations relating to Appellant’s treatment by prison officials and the conditions of his confinement, the district court initially sustained Appellant’s motion to proceed IFP. Upon Appellees’ motion to reconsider, the district court vacated the prior order allowing Appellant to proceed IFP pursuant to the “three strikes” provision because Appellant had previously filed three district court cases in which he had been denied IFP status. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Appellant’s interlocutory appeal, holding that neither section 25-3401 nor the general IFP statute statute provides a right to interlocutory appeal of a “three strikes” denial. View "Robinson v. Houston" on Justia Law

In this criminal case, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s plea in bar to charges of sexual assault of a child.During his criminal trial, Defendant moved for a mistrial based upon the court’s decision to grant the State’s motion to amend the information and a jury instruction after the jury had begun deliberations. The court sustained the motion and declared a mistrial. Thereafter, Defendant filed a plea in bar asserting that a new trial would subject him to double jeopardy because the State created the need for a mistrial. The district court denied the plea in bar. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that double jeopardy did not bar a new trial because Defendant failed to show that the State provoked him into moving for a mistrial and that double jeopardy did not prevent a new trial. View "State v. Bedolla" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first degree murder and two counts of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person and sentencing him to life imprisonment on the murder conviction and fifteen to twenty years’ imprisonment on the possession convictions. The court held that the district court did not err in (1) overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of a vehicle; (2) overruling Defendant’s motion in limine seeking to exclude certain testimony; (3) denying Defendant’s motion to strike a statement made by the State in rebuttal closing argument; (4) failing to find that Defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel; and (5) overruling Defendant’s motion to dismiss and motion for directed verdict. View "State v. Hill" on Justia Law

A petitioner for habeas corpus relief whose initial motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) was denied and who takes a timely interlocutory appeal from that denial, accompanied by a motion to proceed IFP on appeal, need not file a second appeal where the district court also denies the second-degree IFP motion. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision summarily dismissing Petitioner’s appeal in this case, holding that the court of appeals acquired jurisdiction upon Petitioner’s timely filing of a notice of appeal, accompanied by an application for IFP status and proverty affidavit. The court remanded the cause to the court of appeals for a determination on the merits of the errors assigned by Petitioner regarding the denial of his first motion to proceed IFP. View "Campbell v. Hansen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant’s amended and supplemental motions for postconviction relief.Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Defendant filed amended and supplemental motions for postconviction relief, claiming that the jury instructions given in his case denied him due process and that he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied the motions after an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the holdings in State v. Smith, 806 N.W.2d 383 (Neb. 2011), did not apply to Defendant retroactively on collateral review; (2) Defendant’s convictions did not offend his due process rights; and (3) Defendant’s claims of ineffectiveness of trial and appellate counsel were without merit. View "State v. Glass" on Justia Law

Huff was tried for first-degree sexual assault. After voir dire, 12 regular jurors and one alternate were sworn in. The next day, juror M.F., communicated that he was anxious about serving and discussed the issue with the court and parties. M.F. explained that his upbringing included crime, gangs, drugs, and domestic assault. He did not think he was “suitable.” M.F. ultimately agreed to follow the law, stating that he believed he could impartially make a decision based on the evidence. The judge rejected the state’s motion to strike M.F. for cause. After both parties rested and the jury was excused for the day, the court indicated that M.F. had not paid attention during trial. The state submitted a printout, showing more than 30 misdemeanor convictions M.F. had not disclosed on his jury questionnaire. Huff objected. The court determined that it had sufficient cause to discharge M.F. without examining him. Huff unsuccessfuly moved to “strike” other jurors, presenting evidence that they had also been dishonest. The alternate juror was seated. The jury returned a guilty verdict. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the dismissal was a “discharge,” Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2004(2). Under the totality of the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion: M.F. stated that he did not think he was suitable, the court observed M.F. to be inattentive, and M.F. failed to disclose his criminal record, which included convictions for crimes other than traffic offenses. View "State v. Huff" on Justia Law

While dating April, Johnson made threats concerning April’s relationship with her former husband Edward. The night before April’s death, Johnson was upset that Edward had repaired April’s van. April’s neighbors reported hearing loud arguing in the early morning hours of December 11, 2011. On December 12, April did not report to work. Officers found April’s body. A pathologist opined that her death was a homicide caused by a stab wound to her abdomen and suffocation, On December 15, Johnson was arrested in Michigan driving April’s van, which contained Johnson’s blood-stained T-shirt and shoes. The DNA matched April’s profile. Johnson was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. On appeal, Johnson unsuccessfully claimed that the court erred by admitting cumulative, gruesome autopsy photographs; brought a Batson challenge; and challenged testimony and exhibits about Johnson’s DNA profile. Johnson’s motion for post-conviction relief alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move for discharge on the basis of speedy trial, failing to object to the prosecutor’s voir dire comments, failing to properly examine various witnesses, failing to argue after moving for a directed verdict, failing to object to the state’s closing argument, failing to sever one count, and failing to allow Johnson to testify. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. Johnson failed to allege sufficient facts to demonstrate violation of his constitutional rights. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law