Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree sexual assault and second degree false imprisonment. Appellant’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Appellant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief. The district court dismissed all but one of Appellant’s claims without an evidentiary hearing. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s remaining claim regarding trial counsel’s failure to disclose an alleged plea offer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) as a general rule, defense counsel has the duty to communicate to the defendant all formal offers from the prosecution to accept a plea on terms and conditions that may be favorable to the defendant; and (2) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the State made a formal offer, and therefore, trial counsel could not have been deficient in failing to disclose it to Appellant. View "State v. Alfredson" on Justia Law

The owners (Owners) of certain property in the Village of Memphis filed with the county judge an inverse condemnation petition against the Village and sought compensation for an unlawful taking, alleging that the Village deprived them of their property by maintaining a well, a buried powerline, and water pipes on their property without an easement. An appraiser awarded damages to the Owners. The Village appealed. Thereafter, the parties entered into a settlement agreement as to compensation to be paid to the Owners. The Owners subsequently moved for attorney fees and expenses under Neb. Rev. Stat. 76-720, which mandates that a property owner be allowed attorney fees if a public entity initiates condemnation proceedings without negotiating in good faith with the owner. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the Village did not fail to engage in good faith negotiations with the Owners. The Supreme Court affirmed because the record demonstrated that the Village engaged in good faith negotiations to settle with the Owners after the Village appealed to the district court. View "Village of Memphis v. Frahm" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was seventeen years old at the time of the offenses. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder conviction. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that his sentence of life imprisonment was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama, which was decided while Defendant’s appeal was pending. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated Defendant’s sentence for first degree murder, holding that the sentence of life imprisonment was unconstitutional under Miller. Remanded for resentencing. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a nurse formerly employed by the Department of Health and Human Services, filed an action against Defendant, a supervisor who terminated her employment, alleging violations of her due process, free speech, and equal protection rights, among other claims. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that, as a state employee, she was entitled to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court reversed in part and dismissed in part, holding (1) Plaintiff did not allege a viable violation of her Fourteenth Amendment rights, and Defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on that claim; and (2) because Plaintiff’s alleged First Amendment claim necessitated resolving a fact-related dispute, Defendant’s appeal on this issue was not immediately reviewable under the collateral order doctrine, and the appeal must be dismissed at to this issue. View "Carney v. Miller" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and other offenses arising from three shootings that occurred at three separate locations. Defendant was seventeen years old at the time of the murders. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, vacated all of the sentences, and remanded for resentencing, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for mistrial and for new trial; (2) the two life imprisonment sentences without the possibility of parole imposed for the first degree murder convictions were unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama; and (3) the district court committed plain error in regard to the sentences imposed for the convictions of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, attempted second degree murder, attempted robbery, and criminal conspiracy. View "State v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for a murder he committed when he was sixteen years old. More than fifteen years later, Defendant filed an amended postconviction motion challenging his life imprisonment sentence. The district court denied the motion. After Defendant appealed, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama, which held that the Eighth Amendment forbids a state sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without the possibility of parole for a juvenile offender convicted of homicide. The Supreme Court reversed in this case, holding (1) the rule announced in Miller applied retroactively to Defendant; and (2) Defendant’s sentence was unconstitutional under Miller, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to be resentenced. Remanded. View "State v. Mantich" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the State did not have probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of his vehicle based on the odor of marijuana emanating from his person or on a police officer’s alleged knowledge that there were needles used for methamphetamine in Defendant’s vehicle. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) standing alone, the fact that Defendant smelled of burnt marijuana did not provide probable cause to search Defendant’s vehicle; and (2) the officer’s alleged knowledge of the needles in Defendant’s car was based solely on testimony that should be disregarded as a matter of law. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the court of appeals should have given deference to the district court’s finding of fact that the officer was told about the needles prior to the search; and (2) probable cause existed for the search based on the combined facts that Defendant smelled of burnt marijuana and that he admitted prior to the search of his vehicle to having needles in the vehicle. View "State v. Dalland" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of abuse of a vulnerable adult based on the financial exploitation of a relative and sentenced to three years’ probation. The district court subsequently revoked Defendant’s probation and sentenced him to a term of imprisonment, finding that Defendant had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by committing assault. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the district court erred when it received into evidence hearsay statements of an unavailable witness at the probation revocation hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Sixth Amendment confrontation guarantee and Crawford v. Washington rights do not apply to probation revocation proceedings because probation revocation proceedings are not criminal prosecutions, but a probationer is entitled to due process and an opportunity to controvert the evidence against him or her; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to revoke Defendant's probation. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of several felonies for which he was serving probation. When Defendant’s probation officer conducted an investigation of Defendant's residence, the officer discovered an extensive knife and sword collection lining the walls of Defendant’s bedroom. After a subsequent search of Defendant’s residence by law enforcement officers, Defendant was charged with and convicted of violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1206, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and sentenced to two years’ probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant lacked standing to assert that section 28-1206 was vague because his conduct clearly violated the statute; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (3) the district court did not err in not instructing the jury on the offense of entrapment; (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial; and (5) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with assault while being incarcerated and of being a habitual criminal. Approximately one year later, Defendant filed his first motion to discharge on speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a second motion to discharge on speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion, concluding that the State had twenty-eight days remaining to bring Defendant to trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The State petitioned for further review, contending that additional days should be excluded from the speedy trial calculation because of Defendant’s allegedly frivolous motion to discharge. The Supreme Court held that Defendant waived his statutory right to a speedy trial by filing unsuccessful motions to discharge that necessitated continuing trial beyond the statutory six-month period. View "State v. Mortensen" on Justia Law