Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

A determination that a defendant is subject to the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) must be reviewed on direct appeal from the underlying conviction and sentence, and such a determination is not subject to an impermissible collateral attack in subsequent proceedings.Defendant was convicted of violating SORA’s registration requirement. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State failed to prove he was subject to SORA’s requirements because it failed to present evidence that, during the proceedings for a previous conviction and sentence, the county court had made a factual finding pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4003(1)(b)(i)(B). The court of appeals affirmed Defendant’s conviction, determining that the determination in the previous proceedings that Defendant was subject to SORA was valid because it was based on an implied factual finding pursuant to section 29-4003(1)(b)(i)(B). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in analyzing whether the determination in the previous proceedings was valid; but (2) this Court’s ultimate conclusion on the judgment was the same as that of the court of appeals. View "State v. Ratumaimuri" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reinstated Defendant conviction and related sentence for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, holding that the district court improperly vacated Defendant’s conviction and sentence based on a police officer’s mistake of law regarding a driving statute and on one of this Court’s decisions, State v. Au, Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,224(2) (2010).The Supreme Court held (1) notwithstanding the officer’s incorrect view of the law, when probable cause exists for a stop based on an objective view of the facts known to the officer, the stop does not offend the Constitution; and (2) because Defendant was not placed legally in jeopardy by the district court sitting as an appellate court, Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2316 does not prevent this Court from reversing the district court’s decision with directions to reinstate Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Thalken" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals remanding this cause with directions to vacate Defendant’s conviction for possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person and to dismiss the charge against him, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.The court of appeals concluded that there was not probable cause to arrest Defendant and that the inventory search of his vehicle must be suppressed. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the court of appeals erred in vacating Defendant’s conviction because there was probable cause to support Defendant’s arrest, and therefore, the inventory search of his vehicle was authorized and the weapon found in that search was admissible. View "State v. Botts" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court affirming the county court’s denial, after a hearing, of Appellant’s request to have the county “pay” or waive his probation fees and court costs in his criminal case. The Court held that because Appellant did not present evidence as to his financial condition at the time of the hearing and the record was inadequate to show that the county court erred in not waiving the court costs, the district court did not err in affirming the county court’s denial of Appellant’s requests to waive probation fees and court costs. View "State v. Jensen" on Justia Law

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