State v. Abdulkadir
286 Neb. 417
Neb.2013Background
- On June 30, 2011, while incarcerated, Mohamed Abdulkadir accused fellow inmate Michael Grandon of stealing items from his cell; a confrontation followed in a prison hallway.
- Prison staff observed a fight; officers saw Abdulkadir standing over Grandon with a knife and heard Abdulkadir say, “You think you can steal from me?” Grandon later died from multiple stab wounds.
- Abdulkadir claimed self-defense after being struck and placed in a choke hold; witnesses and the pathologist described wounds consistent with defensive wounds and downward blows.
- The State introduced 15 autopsy photographs showing the 25 stab wounds; defense offered to stipulate to their content but objected to their use as cumulative and prejudicial.
- Abdulkadir proposed instructions for first‑degree murder, second‑degree murder, and manslaughter; the court used statutory "sudden quarrel" language and a step instruction; Abdulkadir did not object to final instructions at trial.
- Jury convicted Abdulkadir of second‑degree murder and use of a deadly weapon; the court sentenced him to life to life for murder and 15–25 years consecutively for the weapons count. Abdulkadir appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Abdulkadir) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by using "sudden quarrel" language instead of "heat of passion on sudden provocation" | N/A (State opposed reversal) | Mullaney requires the prosecution to prove absence of "heat of passion on sudden provocation"; exact phrasing required for due process | No plain error; Nebraska statute uses "sudden quarrel," which case law equates to the concept in Mullaney; instruction was proper |
| Whether the step instruction foreclosed consideration of manslaughter when deliberating second‑degree murder | N/A | The step instruction prevented the jury from considering manslaughter while resolving second‑degree murder | No error; instruction required the jury to resolve the "sudden quarrel" factual issue within the second‑degree murder step, satisfying Smith II requirements |
| Whether admission of 15 autopsy photographs was cumulative and unduly prejudicial | Photographs were probative to show wound locations, defensive wounds, and fighting position; relevant to self‑defense and provocation | Photographs were cumulative, gruesome, and unfairly prejudicial; defense had offered to stipulate to content | No abuse of discretion; photographs were relevant, not inordinately gruesome, and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Whether a "life to life" sentence for second‑degree murder is an unauthorized determinate sentence usurping Legislature | N/A | Life-to-life is effectively determinate and improperly substitutes judicial policy for legislative sentencing scheme | No; life-to-life is permissible under § 29‑2204 and prior Nebraska precedent; legislative acquiescence to court interpretation presumed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (U.S. 1975) (Due Process requires prosecution, not defendant, to prove absence of provocation when statutory scheme allocates burden to defendant)
- State v. Smith, 282 Neb. 720 (Neb. 2011) (definition and treatment of "sudden quarrel" and its role vis‑à‑vis manslaughter/second‑degree murder)
- State v. Marrs, 272 Neb. 573 (Neb. 2006) (held life‑to‑life sentence permissible under Nebraska sentencing statute)
- State v. Moore, 277 Neb. 111 (Neb. 2009) (reaffirmed Marrs regarding life‑to‑life sentences)
- State v. Policky, 285 Neb. 612 (Neb. 2013) (presumption of legislative acquiescence where Legislature does not amend statute after judicial interpretation)