State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367

Background

Tina Hoult was found bludgeoned to death in her apartment in May 2014; no forced entry or weapon was found. Anthony Burries (longtime on-and-off boyfriend) was convicted by a jury of first-degree, premeditated murder and sentenced to life.
Cellphone records, witness testimony, and eyewitness accounts placed Burries at or near Hoult’s apartment the early morning of the homicide, showed threatening texts/calls from a caller identified as “Tony,” and showed Burries burning clothes and cleaning vehicles shortly after.
Burries was arrested in Missouri; investigators read Miranda warnings and obtained incriminating statements in an interview before he invoked counsel; he admitted burning clothes and having a key to Hoult’s apartment, then stopped answering when told witnesses placed him at the apartment.
The State presented evidence of a prior December 2012 assault conviction against Burries and multiple witnesses describing past threats/violence toward Hoult; the trial court admitted that evidence as inextricably intertwined with the murder (and also under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2) at trial).
Forensic DNA testimony about a blood sample from Hoult showed a single-source profile matching Hoult but included one extra allele the analyst could not resolve; defense counsel did not object and elicited testimony suggesting a remote possibility the allele could be from another person.
Burries appealed raising errors: voluntariness/wavier of Miranda rights, admissibility of 2012 assault and threat evidence, admission of an intimidating letter he wrote to a witness, admission/handling of DNA evidence, and multiple ineffective-assistance claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Burries)	Held
Admissibility of custodial statements (Miranda waiver/voluntariness)	Cahill properly read Miranda; statements were voluntary and waiver valid	Waiver invalid: Burries didn’t understand right to appointed counsel and officers should have re-warned	Court: Waiver valid under totality; statements admissible; no suppression (affirmed)
Admission of prior 2012 assault and threat evidence	Evidence inextricably intertwined with charged murder and necessary to present coherent picture; shows motive, context, consciousness of guilt	Evidence was propensity / Rule 404 violation and hearsay; too remote in time	Court: 2012 assault and threats were inextricably intertwined and admissible; no error
Admission of DNA expert’s inconclusive allele testimony	Analyst’s testimony did not prove another contributor; did not materially aid State	Inconclusive DNA evidence was irrelevant/misleading per State v. Johnson; counsel ineffective for failing to object and for cross-exam eliciting speculative link to Burries	Court: Evidence problematic under Johnson but harmless given overwhelming other evidence; no ineffective assistance proven
Admission of Burries’ letter to Howard (threatening witness)	Letter showed witness intimidation/consciousness of guilt; admissible; redaction not required	Admission without specifying limiting purpose under Rule 404(2) was error; parts were only propensity evidence and should have been redacted	Court: Trial court erred by failing to specify limiting purpose/instruction, but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given cumulative proof of intimidation and guilt; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (2015) (inconclusive DNA evidence that cannot include or exclude a defendant may be irrelevant and misleading)
State v. Sanchez, 257 Neb. 291 (1999) (procedural and substantive requirements for admitting extrinsic bad-acts evidence under Rule 404(2))
State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 475 (2016) (distinguishing admissions from other bad-acts evidence for Rule 404(2) purposes)
State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 (2016) (examples where threats were inextricably intertwined with subsequent homicide and admissible)