Marie v. State
922 N.W.2d 733
Neb.2019Background
- Charlene Marie was convicted in 1999 of use of a deadly weapon and terroristic threats against her husband, later resentenced and released; she received a pardon in 2016.
- Marie filed a claim under Nebraska's Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act seeking damages; the State moved to dismiss for failure to allege actual innocence as required by § 29-4603(3).
- The Sheridan County District Court dismissed her complaint, concluding she could not prove actual innocence and alternatively suggesting claim preclusion barred relitigation of the underlying facts.
- Marie appealed, arguing claim preclusion should not block an Act claim and that her allegations (self-defense) suffice to show innocence.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court held that claim preclusion does not automatically bar wrongful-conviction Act claims by pardoned individuals, but that Marie’s pleading alleging self-defense did not satisfy the Act’s requirement of actual (factual) innocence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim preclusion bars a wrongful-conviction claim by a pardoned person | Marie: Act includes pardons; claim preclusion should not defeat Act remedy for pardoned claimants | State: Res judicata bars relitigation of the facts underlying the conviction for a pardoned person | Court: Claim preclusion does not categorically bar Act claims by pardoned persons; Act contemplates pardoned claimants may seek relief |
| Whether § 29-4603(3) requires proof of actual (factual) innocence | Marie: She is innocent because her conduct was in self-defense (lacked requisite intent) | State: Section requires actual/factual innocence — not merely lack of criminal intent or a legal defense | Court: § 29-4603(3) demands actual/factual innocence (defendant did not commit the crime), not merely a claim of self-defense |
| Whether Marie’s amended complaint plausibly alleged actual innocence | Marie: Allegations that she acted in self-defense and did not intend to terrorize suffice | State: Self-defense allegations do not show factual innocence | Court: Allegations admit commission of the acts and assert self-defense; this fails to allege factual innocence, so dismissal proper |
| Appropriate standard on motion to dismiss | Marie: her pleaded facts should be accepted as true and be sufficient to state claim | State: Complaint fails to plead facts showing actual innocence | Court: Reviewed de novo; accepted well-pled facts but held Marie’s allegations legally insufficient to meet the Act’s actual innocence requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Hess v. State, 287 Neb. 559 (2014) (distinguishes legal innocence from actual innocence under the Act)
- Nadeem v. State, 298 Neb. 329 (2017) (pleading more than lack of intent required to show actual innocence)
- Rodriguez v. Nielsen, 264 Neb. 558 (2002) (self-defense allegations do not establish actual/factual innocence)
- Fetherkile v. Fetherkile, 299 Neb. 76 (2018) (elements and rationale of claim preclusion)
- Tryon v. City of North Platte, 295 Neb. 706 (2017) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (actual innocence refers to factual, not merely legal, innocence)
- Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (1992) (actual innocence as factual innocence)