Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his drug-related convictions and sentences, raising several issues. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting testimony regarding drug weights; (2) the district court did not err in admitting into evidence notebooks and notepads - known as “owe notes” - seized from Defendant’s vehicle; (3) there was not anything clearly erroneous or unduly prejudicial in the instructions and admonitions given to the jury; and (4) Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel did not warrant relief; and (5) Defendant’s remaining assignments of error were without merit. View "State v. Schwaderer" on Justia Law

Defendant, who was convicted of violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1212.04 and other offenses, appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for postconviction relief, arguing that he should have received an evidentiary hearing on his allegations. Defendant’s arguments were premised on the constitutionality of section 28-1212.04. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, holding (1) the district court properly found that Defendant’s allegations raising direct constitutional challenges to section 28-1212.04 were procedurally barred; and (2) Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim did not entitle him to an evidentiary hearing because the allegations could not support a finding of deficient performance. View "State v. Ross" on Justia Law

After a stipulated bench trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Defendant was sentenced to three to five years’ imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence against him should be suppressed because there was no probable cause to support the issuance of a search warrant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when his house and vehicle were searched because the application and warrant established probable cause; and (2) officers did not exceed the scope of the search warrant when they searched a vehicle parked outside the house described in the search warrant. View "State v. Hidalgo" on Justia Law

Defendant and his father were both charged with criminal conspiracy to commit felony theft. The district court joined the two cases for trial. Before trial, Defendant filed a motion for absolute discharge alleging that his speedy trial time had run. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion, concluding that the codefendant exclusion of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4)(e) applied to exclude additional time. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court correctly interpreted and applied the codefendant exclusion under section 29-1207(4)(e); and (2) the trial court did not clearly err in finding that all three factors under the statute were proved by a preponderance of the evidence or in computing Defendant’s speedy trial time. View "State v. Beitel" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction of first degree sexual assault of a protected individual, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury’s finding that Defendant “subjected” the victim to sexual penetration because the victim effectuated the sexual penetration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-322.04, the word “subject” means to cause to undergo the action of something specified, and under this definition, there was sufficient evidence that Defendant caused the victim to undergo sexual penetration by willingly participating in the sexual act; and (2) Defendant did not preserve for appeal her argument that the district court erred in allowing the jury to consider evidence that Defendant attended Sexaholics Anonymous. View "State v. Wood" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for first degree sexual assault of a child, rendered after a jury trial, and his conviction of thirty-five to fifty years’ imprisonment with credit for 129 days served. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although Defendant was represented at trial by an individual who failed to meet the substantive requirements to be a licensed attorney at trial, there was no per se violation of Defendant’s constitutional right to trial because the lead attorney for Defendant’s trial was a qualified, licensed attorney; (2) Defendant’s counsel were not constitutionally ineffective; (3) there was sufficient evidence to sustain a guilty verdict; and (4) there was no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed. View "State v. Loding" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court’s order that overruled his motion for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Appellant pled no contest to one count of first degree false imprisonment and one count of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. In his postconviction motion, Appellant claimed that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in several respects. After reviewing all of Appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err when it overruled Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief without conducting an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Barrera-Garrido" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of exploitation of a vulnerable adult and theft by unlawful taking. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of sixty months for the exploitation of a vulnerable adult conviction and to five to ten years imprisonment for the theft conviction. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively to each other and consecutively to Appellant’s sentences resulting from a separate criminal case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; and (2) the sentences imposed were not excessive, and the district court did not err in failing to sentence Appellant to probation. View "State v. Dehning" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. The conviction arose from the fatal shooting of Gary Holmes inside a convenience store. The district court sentenced Appellant to life imprisonment. On appeal, Appellant’s sole assignment of error was that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Specifically, Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to identify him as the shooter. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the evidence, if believed by a trier of fact, was sufficient to establish Appellant’s identity as the shooter beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence. Prior to trial, the State filed a motion for an order in limine seeking to prohibit Defendant from offering evidence regarding a “choice of evils” defense. Defendant offered a proposed jury instruction stating that the jury must find her not guilty if it found she had acted to avoid a greater harm. The county court sustained the State’s motion in limine and refused Defendant’s proposed instruction. The State ultimately moved for a mistrial due to “the accumulated effect of statements and questions” by defense counsel that the court determined were in violation of its ruling on the motion in limine and which could affect the impartiality of the jurors. The county court sustained the State’s motion and declared a mistrial. The court then denied Defendant’s plea in bar in which Defendant asked that the case be dismissed with prejudice because a retrial would violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy. The district court affirmed the county court’s rulings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining (1) that the county court did not abuse its discretion when it found a manifest necessity to declare a mistrial, and (2) that double jeopardy did not bar a retrial. View "State v. Todd" on Justia Law