State v. Burries
297 Neb. 367
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Victim Tina Hoult was found murdered in her apartment from multiple blows to the head; no weapon found and no signs of forced entry.
- Anthony Burries (defendant) had a long on‑again/off‑again relationship with Hoult; texts and witness testimony showed threats, prior assault (Dec. 2012 conviction), and a volatile relationship.
- Phone and witness evidence placed Burries at Hoult’s apartment in the early morning hours before her last text; witnesses described Burries burning clothes, cleaning vehicles, throwing something off a bridge, and threatening a witness (Harmony Howard).
- Burries was arrested in Missouri and gave a recorded interview after receiving Miranda warnings; he made incriminating statements (including burning clothes) but later cut off questioning and asked for an attorney.
- At trial the State presented: the Missouri interview, testimony about the 2012 assault and subsequent threats, witness accounts tying Burries to the scene and post‑event conduct, and DNA testimony that a blood sample matched the victim but contained one unexplained allele.
- Burries appealed, raising (inter alia) Miranda waiver/voluntariness, admission of other‑acts evidence (404/res gestae/inextricably intertwined), admission of a threatening letter to a witness, and ineffective assistance claims (failure to object to DNA testimony and alleged investigative failures).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Burries) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burries validly waived Miranda/right to counsel during the Missouri interview | Cahill gave proper Miranda warnings; Burries’ limited agreement to talk and later request for counsel did not negate a voluntary, knowing waiver for the statements he made | Burries argues he misunderstood his right to appointed counsel and officers should have re‑warned and confirmed understanding | Court: Waiver valid. Totality of circumstances shows Burries understood rights and voluntarily answered; he later invoked counsel unequivocally and questioning ceased. |
| Admissibility and effect of DNA expert testimony about one unexplained allele | DNA expert said sample was single‑source matching victim; the extra allele likely an artifact — testimony was not prejudicial | Burries argues testimony was the functional equivalent of inconclusive/minor‑contributor DNA evidence (State v. Johnson) and thus irrelevant/misleading; counsel erred in eliciting speculative cross‑examination | Court: The DNA evidence was problematic in theory but harmless here. Even if counsel erred, no prejudice given overwhelming non‑DNA evidence of guilt. |
| Admission of evidence about the 2012 assault and prior threats (other‑acts / Rule 404 / inextricably intertwined) | Prior assault and threats formed part of the factual setting and were necessary to present a coherent picture (inextricably intertwined), not mere propensity | Burries contends the 2012 assault was too remote and mostly offered to show bad character; procedure for 404 evidence was not followed | Court: Evidence was inextricably intertwined and properly admitted to present the context, motive, and consciousness of guilt. Trial court ruling upheld. |
| Admission of Burries’ threatening letter to witness (procedural 404 error and prejudice) | Letter showed witness intimidation/consciousness of guilt and was probative; State offered it and court admitted it | Burries argued portions were inadmissible propensity evidence and the court failed to state the specific 404 purpose or give a proper limiting instruction; admission was error | Court: Admission procedure/instruction under Rule 404(2) was flawed (error), but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given cumulative, strong evidence of consciousness of guilt (e.g., threats to Howard, throwing object, burning clothes). |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warning and waiver framework)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard — deficient performance and prejudice)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (Miranda waiver/limits on duty to rewarn; totality of circumstances for waiver)
- Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (1988) (relation between Fifth and Sixth Amendment waiver analysis)
- State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (2015) (inconclusive/minor‑contributor DNA evidence is irrelevant and may mislead without statistical weight)
- State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 475 (2016) (when an out‑of‑court admission can be direct evidence of the charged crime and bypass Rule 404 exclusion)