Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner was convicted of burglary and found to be a habitual criminal. Petitioner was sentenced to a mandatory minimum of ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Petitioner was erroneously discharged from the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services prior to completing his lawful sentence. Petitioner was subsequently taken back into custody. Petitioner petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Department’s continuing exercise of custody. The district court dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to show that he completed the terms of his sentence and that he was being illegally detained. View "Evans v. Frakes" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a felon and found to be a habitual criminal. Defendant was sentenced to ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment, with a mandatory minimum of ten years’ imprisonment due to the habitual criminal enhancement. Petitioner was erroneously discharged from the custody of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services prior to completing his lawful sentence. Petitioner was subsequently taken back into custody. Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the Department’s continuing exercise of custody. The district court dismissed the habeas petition with prejudice. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because Petitioner has since been mandatorily discharged and is no longer in the custody of the Department. View "Al-Ameen v. Frakes" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. Defendant was fifteen years old at the time of the murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for sixty years to life. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court properly instructed the jury that it would be required to deliberate until 9 p.m. before it could break for the day; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Defendant’s motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct; and (3) the sentencing process complied with proper juvenile sentencing principles, and the court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Cardeilhac" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant appealed, raising fourteen assignments of error. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment for first degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not commit prejudicial error in (1) overruling Defendant’s evidentiary objections and admitting the challenged evidence; (2) denying Defendant’s first and second motions for mistrial or his motion for a recess and a psychological evaluation; and (3) instructing the jury on intentional manslaughter. Lastly, there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Grant" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and burglary. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding sufficient evidence to sustain Appellant’s convictions for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; (2) admitting certain evidence over Defendant’s foundation objection and relevance objection; and (3) instructing the jury on the elements of first degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter and refusing Appellant’s proposed elements instruction. View "State v. Casterline" on Justia Law

Appellant shot and killed his father in the sight of Appellant’s three nieces. After a bench trial, the district court convicted Appellant of first degree murder, using a firearm to commit a felony, and three counts of negligent child abuse. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that Appellant did not voluntarily and intelligently waive his right to a jury trial or consent to a trial before a new judge to which the trial was reassigned; (2) excluding as unreliable Appellant’s expert witness’s opinion regarding Appellant’s mental state when he killed the victim; and (3) finding that the evidence was sufficient to support Appellant’s first degree murder conviction. View "State v. Braesch" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of felony murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and conspiracy to commit robbery. Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of life imprisonment, forty to fifty years’ imprisonment, and ten to twenty years’ imprisonment, respectively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) overruling various pretrial motions, including a motion in limine and a motion to suppress; (2) instructing the jury; (3) overruling Defendant’s motion for a motion for a bill of particulars; (4) overruling Defendant’s motion to sever the conspiracy to commit robbery count from the other three counts for trial; and (5) admitting and handling certain evidence. View "State v. Henry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI). After an enhancement hearing, the district court used Defendant’s conviction from a Missouri court in which Defendant pled guilty to driving while intoxicated to enhance his sentence for DUI. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s pretrial motion to suppress evidence, where Defendant’s initial encounter with the police did not implicate the Fourth Amendment; and (2) the district court did not err in using Defendant’s Missouri conviction to enhance his DUI sentence because a suspended imposition of sentence in a previous case qualifies as a prior conviction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.02. View "State v. Gilliam" on Justia Law

The district court found Defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance. On appeal, Defendant argued that the court erred in (1) finding that he was uncooperative with police and gave a false name during a traffic stop, and (2) overruling his motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his person. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) law enforcement officers had sufficient probable cause to search Defendant and to arrest him for drug possession; and (2) the district court erred in finding that Defendant was uncooperative during the traffic stop, but the error did not affect the propriety of the court’s ultimate holding. View "State v. Perry" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to terms of life-to-life imprisonment for each murder conviction. Defendant appealed, arguing, primarily, that because sudden quarrel provocation negates the malice element of murder, the step instruction for first degree murder violated his due process rights because the jury was not instructed that the State had to prove that the killings were not the result of a sudden quarrel brought about by a sufficient provocation. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) when the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant acted with premeditated and deliberate malice, the jury necessarily simultaneously found no sudden quarrel provocation beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) Defendant’s remaining arguments lacked merit. View "State v. Hinrichsen" on Justia Law