Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Frederick Skaggs was convicted in California of attempted forcible rape, kidnapping, robbery, and the unlawful taking of a vehicle. After he was paroled, Skaggs eventually moved to Nebraska. The Nebraska State Patrol required Skaggs to register under the Nebraska Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). After Skaggs requested a determination of the applicability of SORA to him, a hearing was held, and a hearing officer determined that Skaggs was required to register. The State Patrol adopted the recommendation of the hearing officer in full. The district court agreed that Skaggs was required to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State Patrola and district court did not err in determining SORA applied to Skaggs, and (2) the district court did not err when it refused to address the issue of whether SORA, as applied to Skaggs, was unconstitutional because it was not properly preserved for judicial review.

Herchel Huff was driving a motor vehicle when he struck and killed a pedestrian. Huff was convicted of several charges in connection with the accident, including manslaughter and motor vehicle homicide. The primary issue on appeal was whether Huff's convictions for manslaughter and motor vehicle homicide violated the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions because, as Huff argued, manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of motor vehicle homicide. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and in part vacated, holding that, under Blockburger v. United States, unlawful act manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of motor vehicle homicide, and therefore, Huff was subjected to multiple punishments in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court then vacated Huff's conviction and sentence for manslaughter and remanded for resentencing.

Susan Schwerdtfeger became pregnant by in vitro fertilization, and after giving birth, she and Teri Latham lived with the child for five years. The parties then separated and Latham moved out of the home. After Latham's visitation with the child stopped, Latham brought an action seeking custody and visitation, alleging that she had standing based on the doctrine of in loco parentis. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Schwerdtfeger and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred when it concluded that the doctrine of in loco parentis did not apply to the facts of this case, and therefore, Latham had standing to seek custody and visitation of the child; and (2) there were genuine issues of material fact whether Latham should be granted custody and/or visitation of the child.

Terence Nero was charged with burglary, a class three felony. Nero waived his right to a jury trial, and a bench trial followed. The district court declined to make a specific finding regarding which felony it determined Nero had intended to commit to support the charge of burglary. The court found Nero guilty of burglary, and Nero appealed the conviction. At issue was whether the state is required to specify the underlying felony it seeks to prove to support a charge of burglary. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding (1) because the state did not specify the underlying felony it sought to prove, Nero was deprived of an opportunity to prepare an adequate defense as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution; (2) because Nero's right to notice was prejudiced, the district court's denial of Nero's motion for a bill of particulars was not harmless error, and therefore the judgment should be reversed; and (3) the totality of the evidence admitted by the district court was sufficient to sustain Nero's conviction, and therefore the Double Jeopardy Clause does not forbid a retrial. Remanded.

Eleazar Oceguera was convicted of DUI and operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest. At the sentencing and enhancement hearing the State offered three certified copies of prior convictions, the first of which was for driving under revocation. The district court found the three exhibits were valid prior convictions of DUI. The State agreed that the district court erred and filed a motion for remand, which the court of appeals denied. At issue was whether the Supreme Court should remand the case for sentencing on DUI or remand for a new enhancement hearing. The Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred when it used a prior conviction for driving under revocation to enhance Oreguera's sentence for DUI; (2) the restrictions of 29-231.01 or 29-2316, which contain a stringent double jeopardy provision, are inapplicable in this case; and (3) because this case is more analogous to habitual criminal cases where the Court has remanded for a new enhancement hearing when the State has failed to produce sufficient evidence of the requisite prior convictions, the same procedure should be used here. Vacated and remanded with directions.

Defendant Roy Ellis was convicted of first-degree murder in connection with the killing of a 12-year old girl. For this, he was sentenced to death. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court. Although many issues were presented on appeal, the primary issue for the Court to decide was whether the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence of Defendant's "prior bad acts," and whether that evidence prejudiced him. Defendant argued that the district court erred by allowing evidence of prior sexual assaults to his stepdaughters, and abused its discretion by denying two mistrial requests when that evidence was ultimately admitted. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and concluded that Defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of the evidence. The Court found no merit to his other claims, and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence.

In 2008, Appellant Mauro Yos-Chiguil pled nolo contendere to murder and assault charges. The Court of Appeals dismissed his direct appeal as untimely. Appellant unsuccessfully sought relief under the state's immigration advisement statute. Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court for post-conviction relief. He argued that the district court denied his petition without an evidentiary hearing. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to review most of Appellant's claims because they were included in his "untimely" appeal. The only claim the Court could review pertained to his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Court believed that claim alleged sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Lancaster County Mental Health Board (Board) determined that D.H. was a âdangerous sex offenderâ within the meaning of the Sex Offender Commitment Act (SOCA) and should be committed for inpatient treatment. The determination was affirmed on appeal to the district court. D.H. appealed, arguing that the district court erred in affirming the Boardâs order for multiple reasons. The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented before the Board and the district court sufficient to support D.H.âs commitment. The Court affirmed the order of the Board and decision of the district court.

In the early 1990âs, a jury found A.M. guilty of first-degree sexual assault, and the court sentenced him to prison. Shortly before his release in 2008, the State filed a petition under the Sex Offender Commitment Act (SOCA) to have A.M. declared a dangerous sex offender and committed to inpatient care. The Mental Health Board (Board) found by clear and convincing evidence that A.M. was a dangerous sex offender but that neither voluntary hospitalization nor other treatment alternatives would prevent him from reoffending. A.M. appealed the Boardâs decision to the district court, âasserting a litany of constitutional and evidentiary errors.â The district court rejected A.M.âs claims, and affirmed the Boardâs decision to have A.M. committed. After a thorough review of the Boardâs deliberations and the district courtâs record, the Supreme Court found many of A.M.âs issues raised on appeal meritless. However, the Court remanded the case to the Board for further evidentiary findings for the record.

The Appellant Rex Moats was a former candidate for the thirty ninth district of Nebraska Legislature. During the course of the 2008 election, the Republican Party paid for and distributed publications in opposition to Moatsâ candidacy. Moats filed a complaint in district court, where he identified in eleven separate publications instances of where he claimed the Republican Party defamed him, portrayed him in a false light and violated several consumer protection laws. The Republican Party filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and the court granted it, dismissing Moatsâ case. The Supreme Court noted that context was critical to analyzing whether a statement was defamatory, particularly if the statement expressed a fact or opinion. The Court examined the circumstances in which each statement was made, finding they were political campaign brochures intended to persuade voters to vote against Moats through the use of rhetoric and hyperbole. The Court characterized all of the cited statements as âopinionâ and held they were protected speech under the Constitution. The Court could not find that the statements violated consumer protection laws. Accordingly, it affirmed the district courtâs decision to dismiss Moatsâ case.