Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, sitting as an appellate court, affirming the county court's denial of Defendant's motion for absolute discharge based on her statutory right to a speedy trial, holding that the county court did not clearly err in finding good cause for the judicial delays.Defendant was charged with two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence assault in the third degree. Defendant requested a jury trial. Defendant later filed a motion for absolute discharge, claiming violations of her statutory and constitutional rights to a speedy trial. The county court denied the motion. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly affirmed the county court's order denying Defendant's motion for absolute discharge under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207 because the State failed to meet its burden to show that good cause existed sufficient to toll Defendant's speedy trial rights. View "State v. Chase" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice or for absolute discharge based on late disclosures of discovery information resulting in delays Defendant argued implicated his speedy trial rights and denying Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the fruits of the search of his residence, two cell phones taken from his person incident to his unlawful arrest, information obtained from a search of the contents of his two cell phones, cell records and cell site location information from the cell phone service providers. Defendant also challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss and motion for complete discharge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error. View "State v. Short" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court overruling Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that Defendant failed to prove that he suffered prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).After a second trial, Defendant was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and related crimes. In his pro se motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel by his counsel's failure to call impeachment witnesses. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to assert an ineffective assistance of counsel claim that warranted an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Britt" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Appellant's motion for absolute discharge, holding that Appellant's statutory speedy trial rights were not violated.On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court impermissibly shifted the burden of proof during the hearing on his motion for absolute discharge and erred in finding good cause under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1207(4)(f) to exclude a period of time immediately following the appointment of replacement defense counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no plain error regarding either the order of proof or the burden of proof; and (2) there was no statutory speedy trial violation, and therefore, the district court properly overruled Appellant's motion. View "State v. Coomes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and for aiding and abetting a robbery, holding that the district court did not violate Defendant's right to confrontation when it allowed a witness to testify via two-way interactive video.The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the district court did not err when it (1) overruled Defendant's confrontation objection to the testimony of the witness at issue, who had tested positive for COVID-19 and was experiencing symptoms; (2) determined that the foundation was sufficient to admit the witness's testimony regarding his translation of Spanish words spoken by Defendant; (3) admitted certain Facebook messages; and (4) sentenced Defendant. Lastly, there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions. View "State v. Comacho" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dissolving the marriage of Daniel Cornwell and Melanie Cornwell, holding that the district court did not err in using the immediate offset method of valuation to value the martial portion of Daniel's pension.Both parties appealed in this case. Daniel argued that the district court erred in using the immediate offset method to value his pension. On cross-appeal, Melanie argued that the district court erred in not awarding her attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by using the immediate offset method of valuation and to accordingly value and divide the estate; and (2) did not err in not awarding Melanie attorney fees and costs. View "Cornwell v. Cornwell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, holding that the trial court did not commit reversible error or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) applied the correct standard and did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motions for appointment of successor trial counsel and by denying counsel's motion to withdraw; (2) did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's request to obtain his own physical copies of discovery material; (3) did not abuse its discretion in discharging an African-American juror; (4) did not err by allowing the State to present a portion of its case in chief in Defendant's absence; and (5) Defendant was not entitled to relief on his remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Figures" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the county court determining that it lacked authority to permit adoption by a same-sex married couple, holding that the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-101 permits a same-sex married couple to adopt a minor child.Kelly and Maria filed a petition to adopt Yasmin. The county court denied the request, determining that it did not have the authority to permit adoption by a "wife and wife." The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the county court erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to permit a same-sex married couple to adopt a child. View "In re Adoption of Yasmin S." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's pro se motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant's claims were all either procedurally barred, based upon mere conclusions of fact and law, or refuted by the trial record.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and other offenses. In his pro se motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued (1) law enforcement extracted information from his cell phone before the crime occurred and unlawfully searched the phone before obtaining a warrant, (2) the State committed a Brady violation, (3) there were various acts of prosecutorial misconduct committed during trial, and (4) both trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of postconviction relief, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error. View "State v. Stelly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the motion for postconviction relief.Defendant was convicted of one count of theft by unlawful taking, one count of attempted theft by unlawful taking, and one count of abuse of a vulnerable adult. In his postconviction motion, Defendant alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal when he was directed to do so. The district court denied the motion following a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that Defendant was not deficient in failing to file a direct appeal. View "State v. Combs" on Justia Law