State v. Benson, 943 N.W.2d 426

Background

On Sept. 18, 2017 James Womack was shot and later died; surveillance and witness accounts identified a tan extended-cab pickup as the shooter’s vehicle and showed two occupants firing from the pickup.
Police located and seized a pickup registered to Michael Benson; processing recovered spent casings matching the scene, gunshot residue, and a Hy-Vee receipt placing Benson at the truck earlier that day. Cell‑phone location data placed Benson near the shooting time.
Benson reported the pickup stolen (Sept. 20); Officer Negrete took a report in the apartment parking lot. Benson later met detectives at Omaha PD headquarters (Sept. 23), was read Miranda warnings, waived them, and was interviewed and then arrested.
A search warrant for Benson’s cell‑phone data was executed Sept. 20; the warrant/application mistakenly listed Sept. 18 as the drafting/signing date but the narrative and attachments reflected correct investigative dates.
While jailed, Benson made calls to witnesses (Jefferson and Guitron) urging them not to cooperate; those calls led to two tampering counts added in Feb. 2019. At trial Benson was convicted of second‑degree murder, related weapons offenses, and two counts of witness tampering.
Post‑trial, Benson appealed challenging suppression of statements (Sept. 20 and Sept. 23), suppression of cell‑phone data (warrant defect/probable cause), denial of severance of tampering counts, and sufficiency of the evidence; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Benson's Argument	Held
1) Suppress Sept. 20 statements to Officer Negrete (Miranda/custody)	Not custodial; statements admissible	Interaction was a detention/custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings	Denied — objectively not custody, Miranda not required
2) Suppress Sept. 23 statements to Det. Davis (Miranda waiver)	Benson was advised, waived knowingly and voluntarily	Waiver invalid because he was unaware he was a homicide suspect and Davis misled him	Denied — waiver knowing/voluntary; officers need not disclose interrogation strategy or all evidence
3) Suppress cell‑phone data (search warrant/date error & probable cause)	Warrant supported by probable cause; date typo was a scrivener’s error cured by attachments and narrative	Warrant invalid because drafting/approval dates incorrect, undermining timeline and probable cause	Denied — totality shows probable cause; date errors were typographical and immaterial
4) Sever tampering counts from homicide/weapon charges (joinder/prejudice)	Joinder proper; tampering evidence relevant to consciousness of guilt and would be admissible separately	Charges unrelated and prejudicial due to temporal gap and different elements	Denied — no showing of clear prejudice; calls admissible for consciousness of guilt; jurors could segregate evidence
5) Sufficiency of evidence for murder, weapons, and tampering	Physical and forensic evidence, videos, cell data, witness statements, and witness‑tampering calls support convictions	State failed to prove he was in pickup and fired the gun; tampering intent not proven	Affirmed — viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings before admissible statements)
Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (1987) (police need not disclose the full scope of questioning subjects to validate a Miranda waiver)
State v. Goynes, 303 Neb. 129 (2019) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause in warrant affidavits)
State v. Montoya, 304 Neb. 96 (2019) (Miranda/custody and objective test for whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
State v. Stelly, 304 Neb. 33 (2019) (scrivener’s errors in warrants not necessarily fatal where attachments cure ambiguity)
State v. Briggs, 303 Neb. 352 (2019) (standard for reviewing denial of severance and prejudice requirement)
State v. Mendez‑Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 (2017) (sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard; appellate deference to jury on credibility)