Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of third degree assault. The district court sentenced Defendant to twenty-four months of probation and ordered him to pay restitution to the victim. Defendant appealed, challenging the restitution order and alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in requiring Defendant to pay restitution for the victim's medical expenses for a broken jaw and lost income; and (2) Defendant's claims of error regarding the effectiveness of trial counsel were not appropriate for review on direct appeal, as the record was insufficient to address the claims. View "State v. Ramirez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of discharging a firearm at a dwelling while in or near a motor vehicle, second degree assault, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant waived his objection to testimony given at trial concerning whether he possessed firearms after a second shooting; (2) the court did not err in admitting photographs of Defendant possessing the firearms; (3) the evidence at trial was sufficient to support the convictions; (4) Defendant was precluding from raising an objection to an instruction given to the jury during trial regarding voluntary flight; and (5) Defendant was given lawful sentences within the statutory range, even though the sentences were contrary to the court's intentions. View "State v. Castillas" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving under the influence. Defendant unsuccessfully sought to suppress evidence of the traffic stop leading to his arrest, alleging that law enforcement did not have a reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop his vehicle. The court of appeals reversed, concluding (1) the traffic stop was based upon erroneous information contained in the records of the Nebraska Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and therefore, the stop was unlawful; and (2) the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals erred in determining that the good faith exception did not apply. Remanded for consideration of Defendant's remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Bromm" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence (DUI), fourth offense. The district court determined that a conviction for driving while ability impaired (DWAI) in Colorado could be used to enhance Defendant's current DUI sentence and sentenced Defendant for three to five years' imprisonment. The court also revoked Defendant's license for fifteen years. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's DWAI conviction in Colorado could not be used to enhance the penalty for a conviction of DUI in Nebraska. Remanded with directions to vacate Defendant's sentence and to resentence him. View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

After Defendant pled no contest to third degree assault, the district court ordered Defendant to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider all the evidence in the record rather than just the factual basis for the plea in making its determination. On remand, the district court found by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant's crime involved sexual contact and ordered Defendant to register under SORA. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding by clear and convincing evidence that Defendant's crime involved sexual contact and in ordering Defendant to register under SORA. View "State v. Norman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion requesting the district court to redact video recordings of his police interviews. The court excluded certain portions but allowed the remainder. When the remaining portions of Defendant's statements were admitted at trial, Defendant's counsel said that he had either no objection or no "further" objection to the admission of the video recordings. Defendant appealed, arguing that defense counsel's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the response "no further objection" did not present a valid objection, Defendant did not preserve for appeal any evidentiary error that resulted from admitting the statements he previously moved to redact; and (2) the record was insufficient to adequately address whether counsel's failure to object denied Defendant the effective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Huston" on Justia Law

Appellant, a former police officer, was convicted after a jury trial of ten counts of possession of child pornography. Defendant was sentenced to sixty to 120 months' imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) denying Appellant's motion to suppress evidence found on his computer hard drives; (2) finding that the seizure of Appellant's hard drives was based upon probable cause and thus were legally seized; and (3) finding there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant's convictions when the State did not present expert testimony establishing that the actors in the photographs and videos admitted against him were under the age of eighteen. View "State v. Reinpold" on Justia Law

Pursuant to Defendant's plea of no contest, the district court convicted Defendant of second degree murder. Upon sentencing, the court imposed a sentence of fifty years to life imprisonment. Defendant appealed, contending that the court improperly limited or denied his right of allocution and that the court imposed an excessive sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no error in the court's handling of Defendant's allocution; and (2) Defendant failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him, as the court imposed a sentence within the statutory range and considered the pertinent factors. View "State v. Pereira" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of theft by deception in the amount of $500 to $1500 pursuant to a plea bargain. Appellant appealed, contending that the district court erred in failing to inform him that he had a right to a presentence investigation and that, therefore, his waiver of his statutory right to a presentence investigation was not made freely, voluntarily, knowingly, or intelligently. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under a review of the totality of the circumstances, Appellant was informed of his right to a presentence investigation, was questioned as to whether he had been threatened or promised anything for his decision to waive this right, and was expressly asked if his waiver was made freely and voluntarily; and (2) therefore, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Appellant's waiver was made voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. View "State v. Qualls" on Justia Law

Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and two counts of failure to affix a drug tax stamp. Appellant appealed, arguing that probable cause did not exist to stop his vehicle and that consent to search the vehicle was not properly given because of the illegal stop. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the conviction and sentences for possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, as (i) the law enforcement officer properly stopped Appellant for violating Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,142, and (ii) because at the conclusion of the lawful stop, the officer asked if he could search Appellant's car and Appellant gave consent, there was no violation of Appellant's rights, and the evidence was properly admitted at trial; but (2) reversed Defendant's conviction and sentences for failing to affix a drug tax stamp, as the record contained no evidence regarding the absence of drug tax stamps. Remanded with directions to dismiss the charges for failure to affix a tax stamp. View "State v. Magallanes" on Justia Law