State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367

Background

Anthony L. Burries was convicted by a jury of premeditated first-degree murder for the May 2014 killing of his girlfriend, Tina Hoult, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Cell‑phone records and witness testimony placed Burries at or near Hoult’s apartment the early morning she died; shortly after, he allegedly burned clothing, cleaned vehicles, and threatened witnesses.
Autopsy showed death by multiple blows to the head; a blood sample from Hoult produced a DNA profile matching only Hoult, with one unexplained additional allele the analyst could not reliably attribute.
Before trial Burries was interviewed while in custody after receiving Miranda warnings; he answered some questions, later asked for counsel, and then ceased the interview.
The State introduced evidence of Burries’ 2012 assault conviction against Hoult and multiple pre‑murder threats; the trial court admitted these as inextricably intertwined (and under Rule 404).
On appeal Burries challenged (1) voluntariness/Miranda waiver, (2) admission of 2012 assault/threat evidence, (3) admission of an unredacted threatening letter to a witness, (4) DNA evidence handling, and (5) multiple ineffective‑assistance claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding harmless error as to the letter and rejecting Burries’ key claims on the merits or as unreviewable on direct appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Miranda waiver/voluntariness of statements	State: Cahill properly read Miranda; Burries waived knowingly and voluntarily and understood right to appointed counsel.	Burries: his statements show he didn’t understand right to free court‑appointed counsel and waiver was invalid.	Court: Waiver was valid under totality; statements admissible; no suppression warranted.
Admissibility of 2012 assault and threat evidence (Rule 404 / inextricably intertwined)	State: prior assault and threats formed part of the factual setting, explained motive, opportunity, consciousness of guilt.	Burries: prior acts were remote, prejudicial propensity evidence; Rule 404 protections required.	Court: 2012 assault and threats were inextricably intertwined with murder and admissible; no reversible error.
Admission of unredacted threatening letter to Howard	State: letter shows witness intimidation/consciousness of guilt; probative.	Burries: portions were propensity evidence and should have been redacted; court failed to specify limiting purpose.	Court: Admission was error because jury instruction did not identify a specific Rule 404 purpose, but error was harmless given overwhelming other evidence of consciousness of guilt.
DNA evidence and counsel’s cross‑examination (ineffective assistance)	State: DNA expert characterized extra allele as likely artifact; evidence not like Johnson; no prejudice from any counsel conduct.	Burries: trial counsel failed to object to irrelevant/inconclusive DNA testimony and elicited testimony suggesting Burries could be contributor, prejudicing defense.	Court: DNA testimony was functionally inconclusive (problem like Johnson) but evidence was weak and cumulative; even if counsel erred, no reasonable probability of different outcome—no prejudice.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (holding Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (Miranda waiver and totality analysis; officers not required to rewarn)
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (DNA: inconclusive minor‑contributor results can be irrelevant/misleading without statistics)
State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 475 (admissions vs. Rule 404 analysis in consciousness‑of‑guilt contexts)
State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 (inextricably intertwined doctrine for threats closely linked in time to charged crime)
Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (Miranda warnings can suffice to inform defendant of right to counsel during interrogation)
State v. Clancy, 224 Neb. 492 (threats to witnesses admissible to show consciousness of guilt)