Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession of methamphetamine and sentencing her to two years’ probation, holding that the trial court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress.On appeal, Defendant argued that the odor of marijuana alone no longer provides probable cause to support a warrantless search a vehicle because due to the legalization of marijuana in Colorado. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when an officer detects the odor of marijuana emanating from a readily mobile vehicle, the odor alone furnishes probable cause to suspect contraband will be found, and the vehicle may be lawfully searched under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) in this case, the odor of marijuana coming from inside the car furnished probable cause to suspect contraband would be found in the car, and therefore, the warrantless search was lawful. View "State v. Seckinger" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of possession of a controlled substance and child abuse, holding that Defendant was not unconstitutionally seized when Defendant was detained beyond the time reasonably necessary to complete the mission of the traffic stop.Defendant was driving a vehicle owned by his girlfriend when law enforcement stopped him to investigate a citizen report of dangerous driving. Defendant’s children were in the back seat of the vehicle when Defendant was stopped at a gas station. Dafter completing their routine investigation related to the stop law enforcement discovered that Defendant was driving with a suspended license and had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Thirty minutes later, the vehicle was searched by drug detection dogs. Police officers then searched the car and discovered methamphetamine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress because the discovery of the methamphetamine was not the product of an illegal search and seizure; (2) Defendant’s assignments of error related to the evidentiary rulings at trial were unavailing; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction for child abuse. View "State v. Ferguson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court that denied Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not err by denying Defendant’s postconviction claims without an evidentiary hearing.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and related firearms offenses. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief alleging various claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that the district court did not err. View "State v. Henderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, holding that Appellant’s postconviction motion failed to state a claim for relief.Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony in the shooting of a police officer. Appellant later filed an amended motion for postconviction relief, alleging that he was denied the right to a fair trial, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and newly discovered evidence. The district court denied the motion, finding that Appellant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief as to all of Appellant’s assignments of error, holding that Appellant’s claims were without merit. View "State v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of first-degree murder murder and second-degree arson and the sentences imposed in connection with the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that Defendnat's trial counsel was not ineffective.On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove the elements of her convictions and that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in eight respects. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and that the record refuted Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance. View "State v. Golyar" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to vacate and the subsequent reinstatement of the sentences originally ordered, holding that the district court did not err by not addressing Defendant’s constitutional challenge.In this procedurally complex case, Defendant’s original sentences were reinstated by the district court, and Defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction for discharge of a firearm in certain cities, villages, and counties under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1212.04 on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutional on its face was denied. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to vacate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in failing to consider the merits of Defendant’s federal equal protection challenge on the basis of state procedural grounds. View "State v. Washington" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Appellant’s petition for postconviction relief, holding that Appellant was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel and that the district court did not err in dismissing Appellant’s motion for postconviction relief.In his petition, Appellant argued that the prosecutor committed several instances of misconduct and that he received ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that an evidentiary hearing was not warranted and in dismissing his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Tyler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming Defendant’s convictions and sentences for three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child, one count of first degree sexual abuse, and one count of intentional child abuse, holding that the Court of Appeals did not err in concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s conviction for first degree sexual assault.The Court further held that there was no error in the Court of Appeals’ disposition of Defendant’s assignments of error relating to (1) the admission of expert testimony concerning the behaviors and testimonial partners of child sexual assault victims, (2) a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, and (3) the admission of DNA evidence. View "State v. McCurdy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from a traffic stop, holding that this was an investigatory traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion.Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his car, arguing that the law enforcement officer did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop. The district court found that the traffic stop was supported by probable cause and overruled the motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, although its reasoning differed from that of the district court, holding that the investigatory stop of Defendant’s car was supported by reasonable suspicion and was therefore constitutional. View "State v. Barbeau" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction of negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and sentence of probation, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on her ineffective assistance of counsel claims.Specifically, the Court held (1) because Defendant did not file a timely motion for new trial, this Court could not consider Defendant’s arguments of error relating to the overruling of the motion; and (2) applying the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), the record was insufficient to resolve Defendant’s claims that she received ineffective assistance of counsel due to counsel’s personal interest conflict. View "State v. Avina-Murillo" on Justia Law