State v. Burries
297 Neb. 367
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Tina Hoult was found bludgeoned to death in her Omaha apartment in May 2014; no weapon or forced entry was found. Anthony L. Burries (defendant) was tried and convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Cell records and witness testimony placed Burries at or near Hoult’s apartment around 3:30–4:00 a.m. the morning of her death; shortly after, Burries was seen covering himself with a coat, ordered a driver not to look at him, and later disposed of something from a car while crossing a bridge.
- Witnesses testified about a volatile, violent, long-term relationship: prior assault by Burries on Hoult in December 2012 (conviction admitted), multiple threats from Burries to Hoult while incarcerated, and contemporaneous texts showing conflict between them.
- Burries told investigators he burned clothes in his fireplace the night of the murder (which he said Hoult had asked him to destroy because they dated from the prior assault); he also initially spoke to investigators after receiving Miranda warnings but later invoked counsel and cut off questioning.
- Forensic DNA testing on a blood sample from Hoult matched her profile but the analyst reported one unexplained extra allele that she could not attribute to another person or definitively call an artifact; defense did not object at trial and elicited testimony suggesting a remote possibility the allele could come from someone else.
- Pretrial and trial rulings: the court admitted (a) Burries’ custodial statements as voluntarily given despite his equivocal comments about counsel; (b) evidence of the 2012 assault and other threatening statements as inextricably intertwined with the murder (and/or under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2)); and (c) a threatening letter Burries sent to a witness (Howard)—the court later acknowledged the jury instruction about that letter was legally deficient but found the admission harmless given the other strong evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Burries) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of custodial statements / Miranda waiver | Cahill properly advised Burries; totality of circumstances show Burries knowingly and voluntarily waived rights when he answered questions | Burries lacked understanding of right to appointed counsel; officers should have re‑warned and confirmed understanding | Waiver valid; statements admissible; no suppression warranted; counsel not ineffective for failing to move to suppress |
| Admissibility of inconclusive DNA testimony | DNA matched victim; extra allele likely artifact and not probative of defendant’s involvement | Testimony about unexplained allele was analogous to Johnson (inadmissible inconclusive DNA) and invited speculation | Although the allele testimony resembled impermissible inconclusive DNA evidence, failure to object was not prejudicial given overwhelming other evidence; no reversible error |
| Admission of prior bad acts / 2012 assault and threats | Prior assault and threats were part of the factual setting and inextricably intertwined with the murder; admissible to show motive, intent, consciousness of guilt | Admission was propensity evidence, remote in time, and prejudicial; Rule 404 procedures not followed | Evidence of 2012 assault and threats was inextricably intertwined and properly admitted (trial court’s alternate Rule 404 ruling unnecessary) |
| Admission of threatening letter to witness (Howard) | Letter showed witness intimidation and consciousness of guilt; admissible | Letter included material that invited character‑propensity inferences and jury instruction failed to state the specific Rule 404(2) purpose | Admission of the letter was erroneous because court failed to specify limiting purpose under Rule 404(2); error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong admissible evidence of intimidation and guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (Miranda waiver analyzed under totality of circumstances; officers need not rewarn repeatedly)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Johnson v. State, 290 Neb. 862 (inconclusive DNA evidence that suggests a minor contributor is inadmissible absent statistical relevance)
- Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (Miranda advisement may be adequate to protect Sixth Amendment right to counsel in interrogation context)
- Jenkins v. State, 294 Neb. 475 (statements that are direct admissions of charged crime are not excluded under Rule 404(2))
- Parnell v. State, 294 Neb. 551 (threats close in time to charged crime may be inextricably intertwined and admissible)
- Clancy v. State, 224 Neb. 492 (threats to a witness admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt)