Summary
The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed Jack E. Harris’s convictions for first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to conduct a late voluntariness hearing, denying a mistrial based on an alleged discovery violation, or admitting the challenged testimony. The court also concluded that Harris failed to preserve his objections under Nebraska Evidence Rule 404(2), and that the challenged evidence did not warrant reversal in any event.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Harris was entitled to a voluntariness hearing concerning statements made during a police interview when the motion was made after trial commenced.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial based on the State's alleged failure to disclose a police report under a discovery order.
- Whether the admission of testimony concerning other matters violated Nebraska Evidence Rule 404(2) and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(2).
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a mistrial based on the alleged admission of prior-bad-act evidence.
Holdings
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to entertain Harris' untimely motion for a voluntariness hearing because Harris failed to establish sufficient surprise from the State's introduction of the police testimony.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial based on the alleged nondisclosure of the police report.
- Harris did not preserve his Rule 404(2) claims because he failed to make timely, specific objections on that ground; in any event, the challenged testimony either did not establish other crimes, wrongs, or acts by Harris or was stricken with a curative instruction.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a mistrial based on the challenged testimony and closing-argument remark.
Key quotations
“Given the absence of dispositive proof, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion.” (263 Neb. 337)
“Before it is necessary to grant a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show that a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.” (263 Neb. 339)
“We conclude that Harris has failed to preserve any objections pursuant to § 27-404(2), but even if preserved, those objections would present no basis for reversal.” (263 Neb. 343)
Factual background
Anthony Jones was found shot to death in his apartment in August 1995. Witnesses testified that Harris had discussed Jones' murder with them, and Howard Hicks confessed that he and Harris had planned to rob Jones and that Harris shot Jones when Jones recognized him. During an unrelated police interview, Harris identified Hicks by the nickname "Homicide"; the prosecution introduced only that limited portion of the interview.
Procedural history
Harris was charged by information and his first trial ended in a mistrial. After retrial, a jury convicted him of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The district court imposed consecutive sentences of life imprisonment and 10 to 20 years' imprisonment. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.