State v. Ash, 286 Neb. 681

Vencil Leo Ash III was tried for first-degree murder for the 2003 killing of Ryan Guitron; jury convicted and sentenced to life; conviction reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Victim’s remains found in 2010; ballistics linked shots to a .380 pistol purchased by Ash’s sister; eyewitness and co-defendant testimony (Kelly Meehan-Ash) conflicted with Ash’s account.
Three days before trial, the State and Meehan-Ash reached a plea agreement in which she agreed to testify for a reduced charge; defense moved to continue when new, potentially impeaching material surfaced.
Trial court denied continuance requests but allowed an immediate deposition of Meehan-Ash the evening before opening; defense claimed insufficient time to investigate new allegations (meth-induced hallucinations, inconsistent statements, and an out-of-state impeachment witness).
Court admitted a pawn receipt showing Ash pawned the victim’s jacket 2 days before the murder over a Rule 404(2) objection; defense argued the receipt was improper bad-acts evidence and that no § 27-404(3) hearing occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ash)	Held
Whether denial of continuance after late plea deal to call a codefendant violated defendant's right to prepare	Late endorsement did not require delay; court provided deposition and trial could proceed	Last-minute plea made Meehan-Ash a surprise witness; new impeachment/psychiatric issues required time to investigate and secure experts; continuance required	Court abused discretion by denying continuance; prejudice shown and relief reversible (new trial ordered)
Whether, given error, double jeopardy barred retrial	Evidence admitted at trial (taken as a whole) was sufficient to support conviction	Double jeopardy should bar retrial if conviction rests on improperly admitted or prejudicial procedures	Double jeopardy did not bar retrial: cumulative admitted evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction
Whether pawn receipt (pawning victim’s jacket 2 days before murder) was admissible despite Rule 404(2)	Receipt was inextricably intertwined with charged murder — part of the factual setting and probative of motive/premeditation	Receipt was improper other-acts evidence; State failed to show admissibility for proper purpose or hold required § 27-404(3) hearing	Admission was an abuse of discretion: pawn receipt was not inextricably intertwined and State failed to satisfy 404(2)/(3) protections; evidence likely inadmissible on retrial

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (Brady materiality and prosecutor’s duty to disclose)
State v. Kula, 252 Neb. 471 (1997) (late disclosure of investigative reports required continuance where material and prejudicial)
State v. Freemont, 284 Neb. 179 (2012) (limits on inextricably intertwined exception to Rule 404(2))
State v. Robinson, 271 Neb. 698 (2006) (inextricably intertwined/intrinsic-evidence principles under rule 404)
State v. Sorensen, 283 Neb. 932 (2012) (Rule 404 and 403 admissibility framework)