State v. Burries
297 Neb. 367
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Victim Tina Hoult was found bludgeoned to death in her apartment in May 2014; no weapon or forced entry was found.
- Cell records and eyewitnesses placed Anthony L. Burries at or near Hoult’s apartment in the early hours before her death; witnesses testified about Burries’ controlling behavior, prior threats, and a 2012 assault conviction against Hoult.
- Burries was arrested in Missouri; after Miranda warnings he made inculpatory statements (including admitting he burned clothes) but interrupted questioning and asked for an attorney.
- The State introduced (a) testimony and documentary evidence about Burries’ 2012 assault of Hoult and prior threats, (b) a threatening letter Burries sent to a witness shortly before trial, and (c) DNA testimony showing the blood sample matched Hoult but with one unexplained allele.
- Burries appealed, arguing (1) his interrogation statements were involuntary/waiver invalid, (2) improper admission of prior-bad-acts and the letter under Neb. Evid. R. 404/403, and (3) ineffective assistance for several trial counsel failures including not objecting to DNA evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Burries) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Miranda waiver / voluntariness of statements | Cahill gave adequate Miranda warnings; Burries answered voluntarily and cut off questioning when he asked for counsel, so statements admissible | Burries lacked understanding of right to appointed counsel and his partial remarks show waiver invalid | Court: Waiver valid under totality; statements voluntary; counsel not ineffective for failing to suppress |
| Admission of DNA expert testimony (inconclusive extra allele) | The extra allele was likely an artifact; evidence did not meaningfully link Burries and was properly admitted | Evidence was like Johnson: inconclusive minor-contributor testimony that invites speculation; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Court: Testimony problematic but any error harmless — other evidence of guilt overwhelming; no prejudice from counsel’s failure to object |
| Admission of 2012 assault and prior threats (Rule 404/"inextricably intertwined") | Evidence was part of factual setting and necessary to present coherent story (motive, context, why clothes burned) | Admission impermissibly showed propensity; 2012 assault too remote to be res gestae | Court: 2012 assault and threats were inextricably intertwined with charged murder, so admissible; trial court did not err |
| Admission of threatening letter to witness (Rule 404 procedures) | Letter showed consciousness of guilt / witness intimidation and was admissible | Letter admitted without required 404(2) procedural findings and jury limiting instruction; admission was error | Court: Admission procedure was faulty and instruction too broad, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong, cumulative evidence of intimidation and guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings are prerequisite to custodial interrogation)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (Miranda waiver assessed under totality; officers need not reread warnings repeatedly)
- Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (1988) (adequate Miranda warnings informing Fifth Amendment right to counsel also inform Sixth Amendment right during interrogation)
- North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (1979) (express waiver is strong proof but not dispositive)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (2015) (inconclusive DNA evidence suggesting minor contributor is irrelevant and may mislead without statistical context)
- State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 (2016) (threats close in time to murder may be inextricably intertwined and admissible to show motive/intent)
- State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 475 (2016) (distinguishing admissions directly probative of charged crime from 404(2) extrinsic-acts evidence)
- State v. Clancy, 224 Neb. 492 (1987) (threats to a witness admissible to show consciousness of guilt)