State v. Trice

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court held that a jury instruction requiring the jury to consider second degree murder before sudden quarrel manslaughter was erroneous under the court’s intervening decision in State v. Smith. Because the record contained some evidence that the defendant acted upon a sudden quarrel, the court found plain error and reversed the conviction for a new trial. The court further held that the evidence was sufficient to permit retrial without violating double jeopardy.

Holdings

1. A new criminal rule that constitutes a clear break with the past applies retroactively to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final, not merely to the defendant in the case announcing the rule.
2. A step instruction is erroneous when it requires the jury to convict on second degree murder upon finding an intentional but unpremeditated killing before allowing consideration of whether the killing was intentional but provoked by a sudden quarrel and therefore manslaughter.
3. A sudden quarrel is legally sufficient provocation causing a reasonable person to lose normal self-control; it does not require an exchange of angry words, a contemporaneous altercation, physical struggle, or corporal contact between the defendant and victim.
4. Plain error exists where an error is plainly evident from the record, was not raised at trial, prejudicially affects a substantial right, and is sufficiently serious that leaving it uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of justice or damage the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process.
5. The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial when the totality of the evidence admitted at trial, whether admitted erroneously or not, was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court committed plain error by giving a step instruction that required the jury to reject second degree murder before considering sudden-quarrel manslaughter.
2. Whether State v. Smith’s rule that an intentional killing may constitute sudden-quarrel manslaughter applied retroactively to Trice’s case, which was pending on direct review.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a retrial consistent with the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded