State v. Hill

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Thylun M. Hill’s conviction for first degree murder. The court addressed whether Hill was seized before fleeing from police, whether evidence from a residential search warrant was admissible under the good-faith exception, whether ShotSpotter evidence satisfied Daubert reliability requirements, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

Holdings

1. Hill was not seized until police physically apprehended and subdued him because he did not yield to the officers' initial show of authority. By the time of the apprehension, the officers had probable cause to arrest him, and the search of his person was valid as incident to that arrest.
2. Although the search-warrant affidavit was deficient in probable-cause detail, the good-faith exception applied because the affidavit was not bare bones and the executing officers' reliance on the issuing judge's probable-cause determination was objectively reasonable.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the ShotSpotter expert testimony and exhibits because the evidence was sufficiently relevant and reliable, and the identified shortcomings did not undermine the system's reliability.
4. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of premeditated first degree murder.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hill was seized before he fled from police, requiring suppression of evidence found on his person.
2. Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule permitted admission of ammunition found during a warrant search whose affidavit lacked sufficient probable-cause detail.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Daubert and Schafersman by admitting expert testimony and exhibits concerning the ShotSpotter gunfire-detection system.
4. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Hill's conviction for premeditated first degree murder.

Disposition

affirmed