Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of first degree sexual assault of a person at least twelve but less than sixteen years of age. Defendant filed a direct appeal, but his appeal was dismissed due to the untimely payment of a docket fee or the granting of in forma pauperis status. Defendant subsequently filed a motion seeking postconviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal and for various actions made or not made at trial. The district court denied most of Defendant’s motion without a hearing. Following an evidentiary hearing, however, the court awarded Defendant a new direct appeal. This was that appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Court had jurisdiction to decide to decide this appeal; (2) Defendant’s sentence was not excessive; and (3) Defendant could not show that he was prejudiced by any deficient conduct on the part of trial counsel. View "State v. Collins" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of terroristic threats, kidnapping, first degree sexual assault, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct during closing arguments and that Defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to timely object to the prosecutor’s improper comments. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the prosecutor’s statements, when considered in the context of all the trial proceedings, were not misconduct because they were not misleading and did not unduly influence the jury; and (2) because counsel cannot be deficient for failing to object to statements that were not misconduct, Defendant was not prejudiced by counsel’s performance. View "State v. McSwine" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance and was sentenced to eight to ten years’ imprisonment. Defendant’s direct appeal was dismissed because his poverty affidavit was untimely filed. Thereafter, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging that his counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied relief, concluding that Defendant failed to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient. Defendant appealed. The court of appeals vacated the district court’s order and remanded the cause for further proceedings after addressing the procedure the district court should follow when considering a postconviction motion that raises both an allegation that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal and other ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, while this Court adopted a slightly different procedure than the one proposed by the court of appeals, the proper disposition of the appeal in this case was that the district court’s order denying certain of Defendant’s postconviction claims should be vacated and the cause remanded. View "State v. Determan" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,198(1), which criminalizes the act of proximately causing serious bodily injury to another while driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by failing to strictly construe the proximate cause element of section 60-6,198(1) to require a “but for” causal analysis of proximate cause, and that, had it done so, it could not have found him guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State met its burden of proving that Defendant’s act of driving while under the influence was both a “but for” cause and a proximate cause of serious bodily injury; and (2) because the serious bodily injury was a direct and natural result of Defendant’s act of driving while under the influence and there was no efficient intervening cause, a reasonable trier of fact could find that the State met its burden of proof on causation. View "State v. Irish" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit unlawful possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) admitting the testimony of a police officer concerning the meaning of certain cell phone calls and text messages between Defendant and other persons involved in the drug conspiracy; (2) denying Defendant’s motions to continue trial or exclude the testimony of a witness despite the State’s failure to timely disclose the person’s status as a witness; and (3) convicting Defendant of a Class 1B felony instead of a Class II felony and sentencing Defendant to twenty to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. View "State v. Russell" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. For reasons not relevant to this appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the cause for another trial. On remand, after a jury-waived trial, Defendant was again found guilty of second degree murder. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment of forty years to life. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) finding certain witnesses unavailable and admitting transcripts of their testimony from the first trial; (2) admitting hearsay testimony under the excited utterance exception; (3) admitting a transcript of a jail call between Defendant and his father; and (4) sentencing Defendant. View "State v. Trice" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree sexual assault of a child and related crimes. Defendant was sentenced to forty-one to 110 years of imprisonment, thirty-five of those years being “hard” years. Defendant appealed both his convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and remanded the cause for resentencing, holding (1) the trial court did not err in admitting certain exhibits into evidence; (2) the trial court did not err in admitting testimony regarding Defendant’s photo albums; (3) the trial court did not err in allowing hearsay testimony as prior consistent statements; (4) there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions; (5) Defendant waived his right to assert the issue that the court erred in not declaring a mistrial due to prosecutorial misconduct; and (6) the trial court made a mistake in law in imposing Defendant’s sentences. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was acquitted of first degree sexual assault and convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to amend the information. Defendant filed a plea in bar on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied the plea in bar. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the operative information, after the amendment, violated Defendant’s right to not be subject to double jeopardy because the primary issue had already been litigated and decided in Defendant’s favor. View "State v. Lavalleur" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four felonies arising from his assaults of his former wife. Defendant appealed, arguing that the State violated his Sixth Amendment right to confidential communications with his counsel and the right to have appointment of trial counsel without the interference of the prosecutor because a series prosecutors had possession of his confidential trial strategy before his trial. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment and vacated Defendant’s convictions, holding (1) when Defendant’s confidential trial strategy was disclosed to prosecuting attorneys, a rebuttable presumption arose that Defendant’s trial was tainted by a Sixth Amendment violation; and (2) the court’s procedures were inadequate to rebut this presumption and ensure that Defendant received a fair trial. View "State v. Bain" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of four counts of criminal nonsupport for failing to pay four months of child support. The district court found Defendant was a habitual criminal and enhanced his sentences accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) the district court did not violate the Sixth Amendment when it failed to submit to the jury the issue of whether Defendant’s nonsupport was in violation of any order of the court; (3) there was no error in the court’s failure to require a jury instruction on a lesser-included offense of misdemeanor criminal nonsupport; (4) the State violated Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2221 in by failing to give Defendant three-day notice of the enhancement hearing, but the violation did not require reversal; and (5) Defendant’s sentences were not excessive and were not in violation of the Eighth Amendment. View "State v. Erpelding" on Justia Law