Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) with refusal of a chemical test and driving during revocation. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the State to reopen its case after it rested; (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions; (4) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant’s out-of-state convictions were valid prior convictions for purposes of sentencing enhancement; (5) the district court did not err in modifying its prior finding to reflect that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions instead of two; and (6) the sentences imposed by the district court were within the statutory limits. View "State v. Bol" on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed two postconviction motions, both of which were denied. Appellant also filed for federal habeas relief, which the federal courts denied. This appeal concerned Appellant’s latest motion for postconviction relief, which contained five claims dealing with the method of inflicting the death penalty and the State’s authority to put Appellant to death at all, no matter the method. The district court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s motion failed to state a claim for postconviction relief, either because his claims were without legal basis or because they were not cognizable in postconviction. View "State v. Ryan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony stemming from Defendant’s involvement in a fatal shooting that occurred during a home invasion robbery. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred when it restricted his cross-examination of three key prosecution witnesses and otherwise violated his constitutional rights of confrontation and due process by impeding his efforts to impeach the witnesses. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the cross examination of the witnesses; (2) Defendant’s argument that the State violated his rights by failing to disclose tacit plea agreements between the State and the witnesses was without merit; and (3) evidence of prior home invasion robberies committed by two of the witnesses was not admissible in this case because it was not relevant for any legitimate purpose, including impeachment. View "State v. Patton" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony for the death of her husband. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain statements Defendant made while in police custody as volunteered statements. Specifically, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the statements because Defendant had invoked her constitutional right to end the interrogation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) statements Defendant made from 3:43 to 4 a.m. should have been suppressed because Defendant had invoked her right to remain silent, but the district court’s error was harmless; and (2) statements Defendant made after 4:18 a.m. were not required to be suppressed as involuntary due to Defendant’s earlier invocation of her right to end questioning, as the statements Defendant made after 4:18 a.m. were initiated by Defendant and were not the product of interrogation. View "State v. DeJong" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. The district court sentenced Defendant to imprisonment for 300 days and payment of a fine. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding that the district court did not err when, during deliberations, it granted the jury’s request to rehear an eight-minute recording of an investigator’s interview of Defendant, as the evidence was not testimony, and therefore, the heightened procedures for a jury request for “any part of the testimony” pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-1116 were not required. View "State v. Vandever" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant moved to suppress the statements he made to police during the murder investigation. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion, and, at a bench trial, the State received evidence of the statements challenged in Defendant’s motion to suppress. The district court found Defendant guilty of both charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court erred in admitting evidence of Defendant’s confession during a pre-Miranda interrogation, but this evidence was cumulative to other admissible evidence, and its admission was harmless error; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Juranek" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of knowing or intentional child abuse resulting in death and was sentenced to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging errors on the part of the trial court and errors relating to the ineffectiveness of trial counsel and appellate counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing Defendant’s petition for postconviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of first degree sexual assault. Defendant appealed, arguing that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial in several respects and that his conviction was not supported by sufficient evidence. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding, as to three of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, they were without merit because Defendant failed to allege how he was prejudiced by his counsel’s performance. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified, holding (1) the court of appeals applied the wrong reasoning in finding that three of Defendant’s ineffective assistance claims lacked merit for failure to allege prejudice, as resolution of ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims requires specific allegations of the deficient conduct, but allegations of prejudice are not necessary on direct appeal; and (2) in these three instances, the record was not sufficient to review Defendant’s claim. View "State v. Filholm" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder conviction. Defendant subsequently filed an amended motion for DNA testing of a T-shirt and shell casings found at the scene of the shooting. The district court denied the request for DNA testing, concluding that Defendant had failed to provide sufficient evidence for the court to make the factual determinations required under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4120(5). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it denied Defendant’s request for DNA testing, as Defendant did not satisfy his evidentiary burdens under the DNA Testing Act. View "State v. Young" on Justia Law

In 2009, Defendant was charged with two counts of first degree sexual contact. In 2012, Defendant filed a second motion to discharge based upon his statutory right to a speedy trial. The district court overruled the motion, and Defendant appealed. While the appeal was pending, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw and dismiss his appeal. The Supreme Court sustained Defendant’s motion to discharge without determining how much time remained on the speedy trial clock. The State moved for rehearing of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, claiming that the Court erred by failing to address how much time remained on Defendant’s speedy trial clock after the dismissal of his interlocutory speedy trial appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Defendant’s appeal, holding that Defendant waived his statutory right to a speedy trial and that there was no need to calculate the time remaining to bring him to trial. View "State v. Vela-Montes" on Justia Law