Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of possession of a controlled substance and vacated his sentence, holding that the Nebraska Probation Administration Act (the Act) does not permit the increase of the term of probation to which the offender was sentenced before a hearing where the violation of probation is established by clear and convincing evidence.The State charged Defendant with possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, based on items found in his bedroom following a probation search. The district court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, concluding that Defendant was still on probation and subject to his probation terms at the time of the search. Defendant was subsequently convicted and sentenced. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant did not voluntarily consent to the search, and the special needs exception to the warrant requirement did not apply; (2) Defendant was not subject to conditions of probation and was not obligated to permit the search at issue; (3) the search of Defendant's bedroom was unreasonable, and the items found therein should have been suppressed; and (4) because the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction, double jeopardy did not bar a second trial. View "State v. Simons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiff's complaint against the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (DCS) and three of its officials regarding computation of Plaintiff's tentative mandatory release date (TRD), holding that there was no error.Plaintiff, an inmate, filed an action for declaratory judgment alleging that DCS was responsible for actions infringing on her constitutional rights under the Eighth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by concluding that her TRD was consistent with Nebraska statutes and case law. The district court dismissed the case for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted under 42 U.S.C. 1983; and (2) the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 84-911 for Plaintiff's claims against DCS. View "Williams v. Frakes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant's motion to suppress and convicting her of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia following a stipulated bench trial, holding that the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant's motion to suppress.In denying Defendant's suppression motion, the trial court concluded that Defendant consented to a search of her vehicle, in which certain illegal items were found, and that a subsequent search of Defendant's person occurred incident to a valid arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) probable cause existed to arrest Defendant, and the subsequent search of her person occurred incident to a valid arrest; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief on her remaining allegations of error. View "State v. Hammond" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of misdemeanor shoplifting and her sentence of a $100 fine, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her allegations of error.On appeal, Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to sustain her conviction and that the county court erred in allowing inadmissible hearsay testimony regarding an out-of-court statement. The district court affirmed, holding, among other things, that the hearsay statement was properly admitted under the hearsay exception in Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-803(1). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant's hearsay exception and allowing the disputed testimony; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. View "State v. Reznicek" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's plea in bar alleging that a trial on the pending charges for violations of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act would subject him to Double Jeopardy, holding that forfeiture under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-431, as amended in 2016, is civil in nature, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying the plea in bar.In his plea in bar, Appellant argued that he was already criminally punished for the same crime in a separate forfeiture action brought pursuant to section 28-431. In denying the plea in bar, the district court concluded that Appellant had failed to demonstrate he was punished by the forfeiture. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the sanction imposed by forfeiture under section 28-431 is civil and not criminal for purposes of a double jeopardy analysis. View "State v. Dolinar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court dismissing Defendant's third motion for new trial without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on any of the claims of newly discovered evidence at issue in this appeal.Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and four related felonies in 1989, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a series of motions for new trial and successive motions for postconviction relief, without success. Before the Supreme Court was Defendant's third motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing the motion without an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant's operative motion and supporting documents did not entitle him to an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Boppre" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for four counts of first degree murder, four counts of use of a weapon to commit a felony, and one count of burglary and his sentences of death for each of the four murder convictions, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant assigned 130 separate assignments of error generally comprising fifteen separate topic areas. The Supreme Court discussed the assignments of error and then affirmed, holding (1) this Court could not determine on direct appeal whether counsel was ineffective in certain respects; and (2) as to Defendant's remaining assignments of error, they were unavailing. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that overruled Defendant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant's challenges to his convictions and the five death sentences he received for murders he committed during a bank robbery were unavailing.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of five counts of first degree murder, among other offenses, and sentenced to death for each of the five murders. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging prosecutorial misconduct claims, ineffective assistance of counsel claims, and additional claims. The district court denied relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) denying an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel claims; and (2) denying relief for other alleged violations of Defendant's constitutional rights. View "State v. Galindo" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences for driving under the influence (DUI), possession of an open alcoholic beverage container, and careless driving, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions.After a bench trial, the county court adjudged Defendant guilty of DUI, possession of an open alcoholic beverage container, and careless driving. The district court affirmed, concluding that no abuse of discretion or error was shown in the record and that sufficient evidence supported the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's DUI conviction. View "State v. Buol" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified Defendant's convictions for two counts of first degree murder and two counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that the record was insufficient to address certain claims, and there was otherwise no merit to his arguments on direct appeal.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no plain error in the admission of evidence regarding a prior shooting; (2) there was no plain error in the prosecution's remarks; (3) the record was insufficient to address several of Defendant's numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and there was no merit to Defendant's remaining ineffective assistance of counsel claims; and (4) the sentencing order must be modified to reflect a sentence of life imprisonment for each of Defendant's convictions for first degree murder. View "State v. Mabior" on Justia Law