State v. Huff

298 Neb. 522 (2017) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · December 29, 2017 · No. No. S-15-897

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment upholding Jeffrey A. Huff’s conviction and sentence for first degree sexual assault. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by discharging a juror after observing the juror’s stated reluctance to serve, inattentiveness during trial, and failure to disclose his criminal history, and by substituting an alternate juror. The court also upheld the denial of Huff’s motion for a mistrial.

Court
Supreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Heavican, C.J.; Wright, J.; Miller-Lerman, J.; Cassel, J.; Stacy, J.; Kelch, J.; Funke, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
December 29, 2017
Docket number
No. S-15-897
Procedural posture
Petition for further review of the Nebraska Court of Appeals' affirmance of Huff's conviction and sentence following a jury trial.
Standard of review
The retention or rejection of a juror, including the discharge of a seated juror and substitution of an alternate, is reviewed for abuse of discretion. A ruling is an abuse of discretion if it results in bias or prejudice to the defendant, including discharge without factual support or for a legally irrelevant reason. Decisions on motions for mistrial are also reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Precedential value
Published Nebraska Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Jeffrey A. Huff v. State of Nebraska
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

jury selectioncriminal procedureappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedurejury trialsmistrialappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by discharging seated juror M.F. and substituting the alternate juror after the parties had rested.
  2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Huff's motion for mistrial based on the discharge of M.F.

Holdings

  1. A seated juror may be discharged before final submission of the case under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2004(2), which authorizes substitution of an alternate juror and does not limit discharge to the causes listed in § 29-2006.
  2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in discharging M.F. based on the totality of circumstances, including his expressed reluctance to serve, observed inattentiveness, and failure to disclose his criminal history.
  3. The district court's failure to question M.F. directly about his inaccurate criminal-history disclosures did not require reversal because the nondisclosure was only one factor among several supporting the discharge.
  4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Huff's motion for mistrial because the discharge of M.F. was itself within the court's discretion and did not prejudice Huff.

Key quotations

The best practice in such a circumstance is to question the juror. (532)
Based on the totality of the circumstances shown in the record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in discharging M.F. (535)

Factual background

During Huff's jury trial for first degree sexual assault, seated juror M.F. expressed anxiety about serving and initially questioned his ability to be fair because of his background, but later stated that he could follow the law and be impartial. After the evidence was presented, the trial court became concerned that M.F. had been inattentive and learned that he had failed to disclose more than 30 misdemeanor convictions on his juror questionnaire. Without again questioning M.F., the court discharged him and substituted the alternate juror; the jury then convicted Huff.

Procedural history

Huff was convicted in the Lancaster County District Court of first degree sexual assault and sentenced to 12 to 20 years' imprisonment. During trial, after the parties rested and before deliberations, the district court discharged a seated juror and substituted the alternate juror, then denied Huff's motion for mistrial. The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…