State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367

Background

Victim Tina Hoult was found bludgeoned to death in her apartment in May 2014; no forced entry or weapon found. Anthony L. Burries (defendant) was her long‑time on‑and‑off boyfriend. Cell records and witness testimony placed Burries at or near Hoult’s apartment in the early morning hours before she was last heard from.
Witnesses described a history of domestic violence: a 2012 assault conviction by Burries on Hoult, prior threats while he was incarcerated, and neighbors’ observations of bruising and threatening calls from someone identified as “Tony.”
Burries was arrested in Missouri and gave a recorded interview after receiving Miranda warnings; he made incriminating statements (including admitting he burned clothes) but later invoked counsel and stopped talking.
Forensic DNA testing of a blood sample from Hoult showed a single‑source profile matching Hoult; the analyst also observed one extra allele she could not explain (possibly an artifact), but offered no statistical comparison to Burries’ profile.
At trial the court admitted evidence of the 2012 assault and prior threats (ruling them inextricably intertwined with the murder), admitted a threatening letter Burries wrote to a witness (but failed to give a limiting instruction specifying the purpose), and the jury found Burries guilty of first‑degree premeditated murder. Burries appealed on Miranda waiver, evidentiary rulings, and ineffective assistance claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Burries)	Held
Whether Burries validly waived Miranda/right to counsel during Missouri interview	Cahill read Miranda warnings; Cahill asked and Burries answered; statements were voluntary and Burries later invoked counsel	Burries says he didn’t understand right to appointed counsel and officers should have re‑warned or confirmed understanding	Waiver was valid under totality; defendant understood right and voluntarily answered; trial counsel not ineffective for failing to move to suppress
Admissibility of DNA expert’s testimony about unexplained extra allele / ineffective assistance for failing to object	DNA evidence was not exculpatory for defendant and the extra allele was likely an artifact; even if objection sustained, state’s other evidence was overwhelming	Evidence was like the inconclusive results in State v. Johnson and improperly allowed speculation; counsel was ineffective for eliciting that Burries could be a possible contributor	Expert’s testimony problematic under Johnson but any error was not prejudicial—no reasonable probability different outcome given overwhelming other evidence; ineffective assistance claim rejected
Admission of evidence of 2012 assault and prior threats (Rule 404(2) vs inextricably intertwined)	Evidence of prior assault/threats was part of the res gestae/factual setting and necessary for coherent narrative (motive, consciousness of guilt, why police focused on Burries)	Admission was propensity evidence, remote in time, and should have been excluded or limited under Rule 404/403	Evidence of 2012 assault and threats was admissible as inextricably intertwined with the murder; trial court did not err in admitting it
Admission of Burries’ threatening letter to witness Howard and limiting instruction	Letter was relevant to show witness intimidation/consciousness of guilt; admission was proper and cumulative	Court erred by failing to state a specific Rule 404(2) purpose in its jury instruction and admitted portions that could be used for propensity	Court erred in the instruction/admission procedure under Rule 404(2), but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given cumulative and strong independent evidence of guilt

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (warnings required before custodial interrogation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (Miranda waiver and totality analysis)
Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (distinguishing Fifth and Sixth Amendment counsel issues; key inquiry whether defendant was made aware of right to counsel and consequences of waiver)
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (Neb. 2015) (inconclusive DNA testimony that cannot include/exclude a defendant is irrelevant and may mislead jury)
State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 475 (Neb. 2016) (admissions vs Rule 404(2) analysis; context where a statement is direct evidence of crime)
State v. Sanchez, 257 Neb. 291 (Neb. 1999) (procedural requirements for admitting extrinsic bad‑acts evidence under Rule 404(2))
State v. Clancy, 224 Neb. 492 (Neb. 1987) (threats or intimidation of a witness admissible to show consciousness of guilt)