Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing and without first giving him an opportunity to respond to the State's reply, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed. Thereafter, Defendant brought his motion for postconviction relief, raising several allegations of error. The district court rejected Defendant's claims without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error. View "State v. Jennings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, following a jury trial, of disturbing the peace, holding that the district court did not err by reviewing his appeal only for plain error and that the record was insufficient to reach Defendant's argument that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a statement of errors.Defendant's counsel timely appealed Defendant's county court conviction and later filed a bill of exceptions but did not file a statement of errors within ten days of filing the bill of exceptions. Consequently, the district court reviewed the appeal only for plain error and affirmed the judgment below. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err by limiting its review to plain error; and (2) the record was insufficient to reach Defendant's remaining argument. View "State v. Warren" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting Defendant from questioning the complaining witness, J.K., about her prior allegation against a doctor.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred by prohibiting from asking J.K. about an allegation she made against her prenatal doctor regarding inappropriate touching during the course of a prenatal examination. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's decision to exclude the evidence did not violate Defendant's constitutional right to confront his accuser. View "State v. Ali" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the Village of Dorchester was entitled to summary judgment on REO Enterprises, LLC's claims remaining on remand, holding that there was no error.At issue was an ordinance enacted by the Village providing that renters of property could receive utility services from the village only if their landlord guaranteed that the landlord would pay any unpaid utility charges. REO brought this action seeking a declaration that the ordinance was unenforceable. The district court declared that the ordinance violated constitutional equal protection principles, but the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for consideration of REO's other claims. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Village on the remaining claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Village. View "REO Enterprises, LLC v. Village of Dorchester" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Appellant's motion for discharge for an alleged violation of Nebraska's speedy trial statutes, holding that there was no error in the overruling of Appellant's motion for discharge.Defendant was charged with second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Prior to a status hearing, Defendant filed a motion for discharge. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court overruled the motion. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred in excluding from the speedy trial calculation delay related to his competency proceedings in a separate case and to his motion to continue an arraignment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in overruling the motion. View "State v. Moore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to six felony charges, holding that there was no error.After the district court accepted Defendant's no contest pleas, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his pleas, claiming that he wanted to withdraw his pleas so that he could obtain a second opinion as to his sanity at the time of the charged offenses. The district court denied the motion to withdraw. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Defendant's motion to withdraw his pleas; and (2) the record was insufficient to review Defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. View "State v. Warner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence for driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense, and driving during revocation, second offense, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assigned errors.After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of non-aggravated DUI and of driving during revocation and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The trial court further revoked Defendant's operator's license for a period of fifteen years following his release from incarceration. On appeal, Defendant alleged five instances of error, including the denial of his motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in finding that Defendant's warrantless blood test was reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment; (2) there was no error in the district court's challenged evidentiary rulings; (3) the evidence supported the convictions; and (4) Defendant's challenges to the sentences imposed were unavailing. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment the district court denying postconviction relief sought by Defendant without conducting an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on Defendant's claims.Defendant was convicted of three counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death on each murder conviction. Defendant later filed what the district court referred to as his fifth postconviction motion, alleging (1) after the Legislature passed L.B. 268 abolishing the death penalty and when L.B. 268 was subsequently repeated by public referendum, his constitutional rights were violated; and (2) he was constitutionally ineligible for imposition of the death penalty under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). The court summarily denied relief on both claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly found that Defendant's Atkins claim was both procedurally barred and time barred; and (2) Defendant's L.B. 268 claim was meritless. View "State v. Lotter" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying postconviction relief sought by Appellant, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant later filed a timely pro se motion for postconviction relief alleging that his trial counsel had been ineffective in challenging the admissibility and weight of the State's DNA evidence presented at trial. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence demonstrated that defense counsel's performance was the product of reasonable trial strategy; and (2) Appellant failed to show that his trial counsel performed deficiently in their treatment of the probability statistic admitted at trial. View "State v. Ellis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of second degree murder and sentence of a period of incarceration of no less than sixty years and no more than life, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to one count of second degree murder. Under the plea agreement, the State agreed to make a recommendation of a sentence of twenty years. After she was sentenced, Defendant brought this appeal, arguing that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by failing to make a sentencing recommendation consistent with the plea agreement and claiming that the sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the prosecutor's remarks regarding sentencing did not breach the plea agreement and were not improper; and (2) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence. View "State v. Cooke" on Justia Law