State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367

Background

Victim Tina Hoult was found bludgeoned to death in her Omaha apartment in May 2014; no forced entry and multiple blunt/sharp head wounds. Defendant Anthony Burries was her on‑/off boyfriend.
Cell records and witness testimony placed Burries at or near Hoult’s apartment the early morning of the murder; witnesses described threatening texts/calls and Burries’ efforts (burning clothes, throwing an object from a car, cleaning vehicles) shortly after.
Burries was arrested in Missouri and gave a recorded interview after receiving Miranda warnings; he admitted burning clothes but terminated questioning when told investigators had placed him at the scene and said he would speak to an attorney.
The State introduced evidence of a 2012 assault conviction against Burries for assaulting Hoult and several witnesses’ testimony about past threats and the volatile relationship; the trial court admitted this as inextricably intertwined/res gestae or under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2).
The State’s DNA expert testified blood from Hoult’s arm matched Hoult and that one extra allele appeared (possibly an artifact), producing testimony that could suggest—but not statistically support—a possible minor contributor. Burries’ counsel elicited that Burries’ profile was not run.
Jury convicted Burries of first‑degree premeditated murder; Burries appealed alleging Miranda waiver error, improper admission of other‑acts and a threatening letter, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Burries)	Held
Voluntariness/Miranda waiver of post‑arrest statements	Cahill’s warnings were adequate; Burries knowingly waived rights and then invoked counsel unequivocally only later	Burries lacked full understanding (didn’t know a free attorney would be provided) and officers should have re‑warned	Court: Waiver was valid under totality; statements admissible; no suppression.
Admissibility of 2012 assault and prior threats (Rule 404/ inextricably intertwined)	Evidence was part of the factual setting and necessary to present a coherent picture (motive, context, why he burned clothes)	Evidence was propensity evidence, remote (17 months), and prejudicial under Rule 404/403	Court: 2012 assault and threats were inextricably intertwined with the murder; admission proper.
DNA expert’s testimony about extra allele (inconclusive DNA)	The extra allele was likely an artifact; testimony did not produce misleading statistical inclusion	Testimony created speculation that Burries might be a minor contributor; counsel’s failure to object was ineffective	Court: Such inconclusive DNA is problematic (per State v. Johnson), but given weak DNA and overwhelming other evidence, any counsel error was not prejudicial.
Admission of defendant’s threatening letter to witness Howard	Letter showed consciousness of guilt/witness tampering and was probative	Letter contained material inadmissible under Rule 404 and the court failed to state specific Rule 404(2) purposes or limit jury use	Court: Admission procedure under Rule 404(2) was flawed (jury instruction too broad) — error, but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given cumulative, strong evidence of guilt.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (totality of circumstances test for waiver; officers not required to rewarn)
Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (1988) (Miranda advisals adequate to inform Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to counsel)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (2015) (inconclusive DNA evidence that cannot statistically include/exclude a person is irrelevant/misleading)
State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 475 (2016) (distinguishes admissions from other‑acts Rule 404 issues)
State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 (2016) (prior threats held inextricably intertwined when recent and explanatory of motive/plan)