Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of one count of third degree sexual assault of a child and three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; (2) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of other bad acts/uncharged misconduct; (3) the district court did not err in answering the jury’s question about the exact time of the commission of the offense alleged in count one; and (4) there was plain error in the sentences given by the district court, and the sentences are hereby amended by reducing the mandatory minimum sentence that Defendant must serve before he is eligible for good time from twenty-five years imposed by the district court to fifteen years as provided by Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-319.01(2). View "State v. Samayoa" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, alleging that she received ineffective assistance of counsel, that the district court erred when it admitted evidence related to prior bad acts and other evidence, and that she was actually innocent. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant’s assignments of error. View "State v. DeJong" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences on appeal. Defendant later filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the district court erred when it denied Appellant an evidentiary hearing on three of his claims; but (2) the district court did not otherwise err in its judgment. View "State v. Nolan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The district court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for life for the first degree murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and affirmed his sentences as modified, holding (1) the district court did not err in refusing to give a choice of evils instruction and in giving an instruction defining premeditation that did not change or contradict the statutory definition; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for first degree murder; (3) the prosecutor’s comments during closing arguments were no improper; (4) the district court properly modified Defendant’s invalid oral sentence of life imprisonment by removing erroneous language of “without the possibility of parole” in the written order; (5) the sentences imposed by the district court for Defendant’s remaining convictions were not an abuse of discretion; and (6) the court committed plain error in the manner in which it ordered time served to be credited. View "State v. Custer" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court overruled Defendant’s postconviction motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing and directed the trial court to decide if Defendant’s trial counsel failed to utilize a statement the State’s key witness made to Defendant’s girlfriend to the effect that Defendant was innocent. On remand, the district court again overruled Defendant’s postconviction motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err by (1) excluding certain out-of-court statements on hearsay grounds; and (2) concluding that Defendant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Poe" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse that resulted in the death of an infant in her care. Defendant was sentenced to seventy years to life. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that evidence of the infant’s prior injuries while in her care should have been excluded as prior bad acts under Neb. R. Evid. 404. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for mistrial on the basis of allowing the admission of the prior injuries, as the prior injuries were inextricably intertwined with the charged crime; (2) there was no misconduct by the prosecutor during closing argument; (3) Defendant’s sentence was not an abuse of discretion; and (4) Defendant’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. View "State v. Cullen" on Justia Law

After a bench trial in 1984, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2012, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing, inter alia, that his mandatory life sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately inform him of his right to a jury trial. The district court denied postconviction relief, concluding that Defendant had no Miller claim because he was eighteen years old at the time of the crime for which he was convicted and that counsel was not ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in not granting a new sentencing hearing under Miller, as Miller applies only to individuals who were under the age of eighteen at the time a crime punishable by a life sentence without the possibility of parole was committed; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "State v. Ware" on Justia Law

In 1986, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder. Defendant subsequently made numerous attempts to collaterally attack his convictions. The district court denied relief in each case, and the Supreme Court affirmed. These two appeals arose from Defendant’s fifth postconviction proceeding and were consolidated on appeal. The district court summarily overruled Defendant’s postconviction motion and denied Defendant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the order denying leave to proceed IFP, as Defendant’s second appeal lacked merit; but (2) held the first appeal under submission, as the statute permits Defendant, when he makes timely payment of the statutory docket fee, to proceed with the first appeal. View "State v. Carter" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of possession of child pornography, age nineteen and over, and sentenced him to three years’ probation. Appellant’s conviction caused him to be subject to the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding (1) Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-813.01 requires sufficient proof that Defendant had the specific intent to possess child pornography and not merely a general intent to download files that turned out to be child pornography; and (2) the State adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Appellant knowingly possessed child pornography. In response to the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of 28-813.01, the State filed a petition for further review. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a person knowingly possesses child pornography in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-813.01 when he or she knows of the nature or character of the material and of its presence and has dominion or control over it. View "State v. Mucia" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of operating a motor vehicle without an ignition interlock device. When Defendant committed the criminal act, driving without an ignition interlock device was a Class IV felony. While Defendant’s case was pending, however, the legislature amended the statute to make the crime a Class I misdemeanor unless the offender had a breath alcohol concentration above a certain amount. Defendant appealed, arguing that the statutory amendment during the pendency of his case made his crime a misdemeanor rather than a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the amendment does not apply to Defendant because it substantively redefined the offense of operating without an ignition interlock device. View "State v. Duncan" on Justia Law