Summary
This Nebraska Supreme Court opinion addresses a defendant's motion for the return of personal property allegedly seized following his arrest and conviction for first-degree murder. The court reviews the district court's evidentiary rulings and its disposition of the seized items, finding that the trial court plainly erred by failing to require the defendant to initially prove the items were actually seized from him and by improperly applying Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-820 instead of § 29-818. Consequently, the appellate court reverses the district court's order and remands the matter for further proceedings consistent with established legal standards governing the retention and return of seized evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred in admitting the order of prejudgment attachment into evidence.
- Whether the district court erred in excluding purported firearm receipts on foundation and hearsay grounds and because the Estate was a nonparty.
- Whether the district court plainly erred in disposing of the allegedly seized property without requiring an initial showing that the property was seized from Allen, by relying on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-820 despite the district court's exclusive jurisdiction under § 29-818, and by failing to identify which specific firearms and ammunition were evidence.
Holdings
- Allen waived any claim of prejudicial error concerning exhibit 300 by expressly stating that he had no objection to its admission. The district court's admission of the exhibit also did not constitute plain error because the court did not rely on the attachment order as a legitimate reason to retain the property.
- Any error in excluding exhibit 301 was harmless because Allen himself stated that the firearms belonged to a third party, thereby waiving any presumption of possession he otherwise may have had, and he did not explain how proof of another person's ownership would establish his entitlement to the firearms.
- A defendant seeking return of property must first make an initial showing that the property was actually seized from the defendant. Only after that showing does the burden shift to the government to establish a legitimate reason to retain the property.
- Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-820 applies only when the exclusive jurisdiction of a court under § 29-818 has not been invoked. Because the district court's exclusive jurisdiction under § 29-818 had been invoked, the district court plainly erred by relying on § 29-820 to determine how to dispose of the property.
- The district court plainly erred by failing to identify which specific firearms, weapons, ammunition, and ammunition components constituted evidence of Allen's offenses. The court could not leave that determination to law enforcement.
Key quotations
“the person from whom property was seized is presumed to have a right to its return, and the burden is on the government to show that it has a legitimate reason to retain the property.” (639-640)
“the defendant must make an initial showing that the items were seized from him or her before the State has the burden to establish a legitimate reason to retain the property.” (640)
Factual background
Allen sought return of more than 50 items allegedly seized after his arrest, including approximately 25 firearms, video recordings, clothing, a cell phone, and nine bullet slugs. He presented no evidence at the hearing establishing that the listed items had been seized from him, and he stated that the firearms belonged to a third party. The State introduced an order of prejudgment attachment from a related wrongful-death action but did not identify which items were trial evidence or might be needed in future proceedings. The district court nevertheless treated the listed property as Allen's seized property and entered broad categories governing retention, sale, or return.
Procedural history
Allen was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. After the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, Allen moved in the district court for return of more than 50 items allegedly seized after his arrest. The district court categorized the property as evidence, contraband or prison-prohibited items, and other property, and ordered some items retained, some sold, and some returned. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed because the district court plainly erred in determining the property disposition and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The district court must conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including requiring an initial showing that each item was seized from Allen, applying the proper statutory framework without relying on § 29-820 where § 29-818 exclusive jurisdiction has been invoked, and identifying which specific firearms, weapons, ammunition, and ammunition components are evidence.