State v. Burries
297 Neb. 367
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Victim Tina Hoult was found bludgeoned to death in her apartment in May 2014; no weapon was recovered and there was no sign of forced entry.
- Anthony Burries, her on-and-off boyfriend, had a long history of a volatile relationship with Hoult, including a 2012 conviction for assaulting her and multiple threatening communications while incarcerated.
- Cell‑phone records, witness testimony (including the woman who drove Burries to Hoult’s apartment that night), and Burries’ own statements (including admissions to burning clothes) placed him at or near Hoult’s apartment around the time she disappeared and showed post‑event conduct consistent with consciousness of guilt.
- Burries was arrested in Missouri; investigators Mirandized him, he agreed to talk "within limitations," made incriminating statements about burning clothing, then terminated questioning and asked for counsel.
- Trial evidence included (a) testimony and documentary proof of the 2012 assault and pre‑murder threats, admitted as inextricably intertwined with the murder; (b) an expert DNA witness whose testing found one extra allele in a blood sample but could not statistically compare it to Burries; and (c) a threatening pretrial letter Burries sent to a potential witness (admitted but, court acknowledged, improperly under 404(2)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Burries) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burries validly waived Miranda rights and voluntarily made statements in Missouri | Cahill properly advised Burries; Burries answered questions and only later invoked counsel ambiguously, so statements were admissible | Burries lacked understanding of right to appointed counsel; officers should have rewarned and confirmed understanding | Court: Waiver was voluntary under totality of circumstances; statements admissible; no suppression warranted |
| Admissibility and use of DNA expert testimony (inconclusive extra allele); and whether counsel ineffective for not objecting | DNA evidence was explanatory and not prejudicial in context; any inconclusiveness did not meaningfully aid defense | Inconclusive allele was irrelevant and misleading (per State v. Johnson); counsel ineffective for failing to object and for eliciting that Burries could be possible contributor | Court: Expert testimony was functionally inconclusive and should have been excluded under Johnson, but counsel’s failure to object did not prejudice Burries given overwhelming other evidence; no reversal |
| Admission of evidence of 2012 assault and prior threats (Rule 404/ inextricably intertwined) | Evidence of prior assault and threats were part of the factual setting, necessary to present a coherent picture and explain motive, focus of investigation, and burning of clothes | Such evidence was propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial; not res gestae and too remote in time | Court: 2012 assault and threats were inextricably intertwined and admissible to complete factual picture; trial court did not err in admitting them |
| Admission of Burries’ threatening letter to witness Howard under Rule 404(2) | Letter showed consciousness of guilt and witness intimidation; probative of guilt | Letter contained material irrelevant to charged crime and should have been redacted or excluded under 404/403; trial court failed procedural 404(2) requirements | Court: Admission without proper 404(2) procedure and limiting instruction was error, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given cumulative, strong evidence of guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings are prerequisite to custodial interrogation)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (Miranda requirements met if suspect receives adequate warnings, understands them, and has opportunity to invoke rights)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (adequate Miranda warnings can inform Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to counsel analysis)
- State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (inconclusive DNA evidence suggesting a possible minor contributor is irrelevant and may mislead without statistical context)
- State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 (inextricably intertwined doctrine for admitting prior threats or acts relevant to charged crime)
- State v. Clancy, 224 Neb. 492 (threats to witnesses admissible to show consciousness of guilt)