Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court considered Donell King's challenges to the admission of opinion testimony concerning the victim's alleged crack cocaine use, the State's disclosure obligations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and habitual-criminal sentencing. The court held that King did not preserve a Daubert/Schafersman challenge, that the State satisfied its disclosure obligations, and that the record was insufficient to resolve the ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal. The court vacated King's sentences because the State failed to prove that his 1994 conviction was counseled at sentencing and remanded for a new enhancement hearing and resentencing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether King's general foundational objection preserved a challenge under Daubert and Schafersman to testimony concerning whether H.W. was under the influence of crack cocaine.
- Whether the State complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(e) by disclosing the results and reports of examinations or scientific facts underlying the officers' testimony.
- Whether the record was sufficient to decide King's ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal.
- Whether the State proved that King's prior 1994 conviction was counseled or that he knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel at conviction and sentencing, as required for habitual-criminal enhancement.
Holdings
- A general objection based only on insufficient foundation does not preserve a Daubert/Schafersman challenge to expert or specialized opinion testimony for appellate review; the objection must identify the Daubert/Schafersman grounds sufficiently to alert the trial court and opposing counsel.
- The State complied with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(e) because the record did not establish that the officers had examination records or scientific reports beyond the police reports that had already been voluntarily disclosed to the defense.
- King's ineffective-assistance claim could not be resolved on direct appeal because the record was insufficient to determine whether counsel was ineffective without an evidentiary hearing.
- For habitual-criminal sentencing under § 29-2221, the State must prove that the defendant was represented by counsel, or knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel, both at the time of conviction and at sentencing for each prior conviction used for enhancement.
Key quotations
“We conclude that in order to preserve a challenge on appeal to the admissibility of evidence on the basis of Daubert/Schafersman, a litigant must object on that basis and the objection should alert the trial judge and opposing counsel as to the reasons for the objections to the evidence.” ([8-9])
“We agree with King that for purposes of habitual criminal sentencing, the State must prove the defendant was represented by counsel at the time of conviction and sentencing, or had knowingly and voluntarily waived representation for those proceedings.” ([15-17])
Factual background
The State alleged that Donell King abducted H.W., took her money and property, used her ATM card, and sexually assaulted her. At trial, King admitted taking property but claimed that H.W. voluntarily accompanied him to purchase crack cocaine and that their sexual intercourse was consensual. The trial court admitted testimony from a physician and two police officers concerning whether H.W. appeared to be under the influence of crack cocaine, and it relied on a 1994 Illinois conviction in finding King to be a habitual criminal.
Procedural history
Following a jury trial, King was convicted of first degree sexual assault, kidnapping, and robbery. The trial court found him to be a habitual criminal under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2221 and imposed consecutive sentences of 10 to 25 years for each conviction. King timely appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court moved the case to its docket under § 24-1106(3).
Remand instructions
Vacate King's sentences and remand to the trial court for a new habitual-criminal enhancement hearing and resentencing following that hearing.