Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Jeffrey Hessler’s convictions for first degree murder, kidnapping, first degree sexual assault on a child, and use of a firearm to commit a felony, as well as his death and consecutive prison sentences. The court rejected challenges concerning the denial of guilty pleas, double jeopardy, juror impartiality, venue, the constitutionality of Nebraska’s death penalty statutes, aggravation-phase jury findings, waiver of counsel, and the sentencing panel’s consideration of the trial record.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Hessler's motions to plead guilty to felony murder.
- Whether using Hessler's prior sexual assault of J.B. to establish the aggravating circumstance of a substantial prior history of serious assaultive or terrorizing criminal activity violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- Whether the district court erred by denying challenges for cause to potential jurors who had formed opinions regarding Hessler's guilt.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a motion to change venue based on pretrial publicity.
- Whether Nebraska's death penalty statutes were unconstitutional because the alleged aggravating circumstances were vague, the jury lacked authority to determine mitigating circumstances or weigh aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and the statutory scheme penalized exercise of the right to a jury determination of aggravating circumstances.
- Whether the district court erred by refusing to instruct the jury to make unanimous written findings of fact supporting each aggravating circumstance.
- Whether the district court erred by allowing Hessler to waive counsel and represent himself at sentencing without a formal competency hearing or explicit competency finding.
- Whether the sentencing panel could receive and consider the records of the guilt and aggravation phases.
- Whether Hessler's death sentence was proportional to sentences imposed in similar Nebraska cases.
Holdings
- A criminal defendant has no absolute right to have a guilty plea accepted, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hessler's motions to plead guilty to felony murder.
- Using evidence of a prior offense to establish the aggravating circumstance of a substantial prior history of serious assaultive or terrorizing criminal activity does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because it enhances the punishment for the later offense rather than imposing additional punishment or new jeopardy for the prior offense.
- Reversal is not warranted for a denied challenge for cause when the challenged prospective juror did not ultimately sit on the jury; the challenge to R.C.F. was properly denied because the record supported the trial court's conclusion that he could be impartial.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a change of venue because Hessler failed to show that the selected jury was actually partial or that an impartial jury could not be seated in Scotts Bluff County.
- The Nebraska death penalty statutes were not shown to be unconstitutional based on vagueness of the aggravating circumstances, the jury's limited role in capital sentencing, or alleged penalization of the right to a jury determination of aggravating circumstances.
- The district court properly refused to instruct the jury to make unanimous written findings of fact supporting each aggravating circumstance because Nebraska law requires unanimous verdicts on the existence of aggravating circumstances, but does not require juries to make written findings or unanimously agree on the specific supporting facts.
- The district court did not err by allowing Hessler to waive counsel and represent himself at sentencing without a formal competency hearing or explicit competency finding because the court had no reason to doubt his competence and adequately found that his waiver was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
- The sentencing panel was authorized to receive and consider the records of the guilt and aggravation phases when determining the sentence.
- Hessler's death sentence was proportional to sentences imposed in the same or similar circumstances.
Key quotations
“Under this reasoning, we determine that the use of a prior offense to prove an aggravating circumstance under § 29-2523(1)(a) does not increase the penalty for the prior offense and does not expose the defendant to new jeopardy for such offense. Instead, the finding of an aggravating circumstance is used to increase the potential punishment for the latest crime which in the present case is first degree murder.” (274 Neb. at 481-484)
“Although the analysis of whether a defendant may waive counsel is a two-part inquiry involving competence and waiver, a formal competency determination is not necessary in every case in which a defendant seeks to waive counsel.” (274 Neb. at 494-499)
Factual background
Fifteen-year-old Heather Guerrero disappeared while making newspaper deliveries in Gering, Nebraska, and was found dead in the basement of an abandoned house the next morning. Evidence connected Hessler to the crime, including his access to a Nissan Altima, ammunition and spent casings found in the vehicle, his handgun, DNA evidence, and his recorded admission that he had sex with Heather and shot her after becoming concerned she would disclose the encounter. The jury convicted Hessler of first degree murder, kidnapping, first degree sexual assault on a child, and use of a firearm to commit a felony, and found three statutory aggravating circumstances, including Hessler's prior sexual assault of J.B.
Procedural history
Hessler was convicted in the Scotts Bluff County District Court. After the guilt and aggravation phases, he waived counsel and represented himself at sentencing. A three-judge panel imposed death for first degree murder, life without parole for kidnapping, 40 to 50 years for sexual assault, and 20 to 25 years for the firearms conviction, all consecutive. The Nebraska Supreme Court appointed appellate counsel after Hessler filed a pro se brief assigning no error, reviewed the asserted errors and mandatory proportionality review, and affirmed.