Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of sexually assaulting a child in the third degree. Defendant appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant’s brief touch of the victim’s crotch over the victim’s clothes was “sexual contact.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although some facts suggested an innocent explanation for the Defendant’s touch of the victim, there were sufficient other facts supporting the trial court’s finding that Defendant’s touch was for the purpose of his sexual arousal or gratification; and (2) therefore, sufficient evidence supported the verdict. View "State v. Bauer" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of second degree murder and one count of use of a weapon to commit a felony. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment on both murder convictions and to ten to twenty years in prison on the weapon conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant's trial counsel rendered effective assistance. View "State v. Fester" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to driving under the influence (DUI). The offense occurred in 2011. After an enhancement hearing, the district court found that Defendant had three prior convictions and that the current DUI offense should be enhanced to a fourth offense. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that, at the enhancement hearing, the State met its evidentiary burden in establishing Defendant's prior DUI convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) for purposes of enhancement of a DUI offense, the State is not required to provide an exact offense date for prior convictions, but rather, the State is required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the prior offense occurred within the twelve years prior to the offense for which the defendant is being charged; and (2) that the district court correctly found that the relevant evidence in this case made it more likely than not that one of Defendant's prior convictions pursuant to which his 2011 DUI offense was enhanced occurred within the twelve years of his 2011 DUI offense. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err when it (1) allowed a witness to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to avoid testifying at trial; (2) denied Defendant's request to grant the witness use immunity to allow him to testify in Defendant's defense; (3) declined to admit the witness' recorded statement to police under a hearsay exception; (4) did not deny Defendant a complete defense by making the foregoing rulings; and (4) overruled Defendant's motion for a mistrial and his motion for a new trial. View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) under the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not err in overruling Appellant's motions to suppress the eyewitness identifications of two witnesses and in subsequently allowing both witnesses to make in-court identifications of Appellant, as the identifications of both witnesses were reliable; and (2) the district court did not err when, in its articulation of its factual findings, it overruled Appellant's motions to suppress the eyewitness identifications. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony for the killing of his mother. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the district court denied without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury instructions, taken as a whole, correctly stated the elements of the crime, and therefore, Appellant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance for failing to object to the instructions; (2) Appellant failed to identify an expert who would have opined differently on Appellant's insanity, and therefore, Appellant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to obtain an additional expert opinion as to Appellant's sanity at the time of the killing; and (3) the arguments Appellant asserted were omitted by appellate counsel lacked merit. View "State v. Fox" on Justia Law

After a joint jury trial with his codefendant, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ninety-six to 150 years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding, inter alia, that the district court did not err in (1) refusing to sever Defendant's trial from his codefendant's; (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence of gang membership and prior bad acts without a hearing; (3) allowing the State to introduce hearsay evidence under the excited utterance exception to hearsay; (4) overruling Defendant's motions for mistrial; and (5) admitting post mortem photographs depicting the victim's face with a fatal wound, as the admission was not unfairly prejudicial to Defendant. The Court also held that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions and that Defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a joint jury trial with his codefendant, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ninety-six to 150 years. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err in (1) failing to sever Defendant's trial from his codefendant's, as Defendant was not prejudiced by the joint trial; and (2) allowing the jury to separate without obtaining a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of Defendant's right to sequester the jury, as the district court met the requirement that the defendant expressly agrees to waive sequestration. View "State v. Foster" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of the felony offense of driving with a revoked license in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,197.06(1). The court sentenced Defendant to ninety days' jail time and a fifteen-year license revocation. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) in State v. Hernandez, the Supreme Court held that section 60-6,197.06(1) was ambiguous and that ignition interlock device violations fall under a different misdemeanor statute; (2) his Department of Motor Vehicles record and documents, and the statements certifying their authenticity, were inadmissible hearsay that violated his right to confrontation; and (3) his sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) failing to apply the reasoning of Hernandez, as Defendant's conduct was distinguishable from the conduct of the defendant in Hernandez; (2) admitting the disputed documents, as any error on this issue was undoubtedly harmless; and (3) imposing the sentence of ninety days' jail time. View "State v. Leibel" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in (1) denying Defendant's motion to continue trial based upon a witness's plea agreement to testify because her deal was struck upon the eve of trial; and (2) admitting into evidence a receipt showing that Defendant pawned the victim's jacket two days before the victim's murder because the evidence was inadmissible as evidence of other bad acts, namely theft. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and sentence, holding that the district court (1) erred in denying Defendant's motion for continuance, as the failure to provide a continuance under the circumstances was prejudicial; and (2) abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the theft under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule making a defendant's uncharged bad act inadmissible. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Ash" on Justia Law