State v. Britt, 940 N.W.2d 270

Three members of the Avalos family were shot to death in their Omaha home on July 9, 2012; bullets recovered were consistent with .22- and .40-caliber firearms.
Evidence of forced entry, spent shell casings, and autopsy findings showed gunshot wounds to the head as cause of death.
Witnesses placed Timothy Britt with alleged coconspirator Anthony Davis shortly before and after the shootings; Britt owned a .22 revolver and was observed burning gloves and otherwise concealing evidence after the murders.
Davis and other witnesses (including cooperating witness Greg Logemann) provided inculpatory statements to police; Britt’s first convictions were reversed on appeal due to admission of Davis’s hearsay, and Britt was retried.
At retrial the State introduced multiple crime-scene and autopsy photographs over Britt’s Rule 403 objections; Britt was convicted on three counts of first-degree murder, three counts of using a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and one count of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person; sentences were imposed consecutively.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of crime-scene and autopsy photographs (Neb. Evid. R. 403)	State: photos were relevant to body positions, wounds, spent casings, suggested multiple shooters, and linked crimes to Britt’s .22 revolver	Britt: photographs were gruesome, cumulatively duplicative, and unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403	Court: Photographs admitted for proper purposes; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; no abuse of discretion
Confrontation Clause — court didn’t call coconspirator Davis to testify	State: trial court has no independent duty to call witnesses; multiple witnesses were tested by cross-examination and evidence sufficed without Davis	Britt: exclusion of Davis’s live testimony denied his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and left key identification/attendance evidence untested	Court: Claim not persuasive — no duty to call Davis; defendant had opportunity to cross-examine other witnesses; evidence sufficiently supported convictions; confrontation right not violated

State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 (2014) (photographs illustrating contested issues in homicide are admissible if proper foundation and probative value outweighs prejudice)
State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 684 (2016) (additional photographs of the same subject are not unfairly prejudicial when admitted for a proper purpose)
State v. Smith, 302 Neb. 154 (2019) (de novo review of Confrontation Clause issues; factual findings reviewed for clear error)
State v. Britt, 293 Neb. 381 (2016) (prior reversal for admission of coconspirator Davis’s hearsay statements)
State v. Davis, 290 Neb. 826 (2015) (related coconspirator trial and issues concerning statements and evidence)
State v. Stelly, 304 Neb. 33 (2019) (recognition that gruesome crimes often produce gruesome photos but admissibility depends on proper foundation)
People v. Long, 38 Cal. App. 3d 680 (1974) (observations on jurors’ ability to evaluate gruesome evidence without undue prejudice)