State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367

Background

Victim Tina Hoult was found bludgeoned to death in her apartment in May 2014; no signs of forced entry and multiple blunt/sharp head wounds.
Defendant Anthony Burries had a long, volatile relationship with Hoult, including a 2012 conviction for assaulting her; text and witness evidence showed threats and controlling behavior before the murder.
Cell phone records, eyewitness testimony placing Burries at Hoult’s apartment early May 16–17, and witness accounts (including Howard) that Burries covered himself, threw something from a bridge, and later burned clothes supported the State’s timeline.
Burries was arrested in Missouri, given Miranda warnings, spoke to investigators admitting he burned clothes, then invoked counsel; trial court found the pre-invocation statements voluntary and admissible.
At trial the State introduced (a) testimony and documents about the 2012 assault and prior threats, (b) a letter Burries sent threatening a witness (Howard), and (c) DNA expert testimony about a blood sample showing Hoult’s profile with one extra allele the analyst could not interpret conclusively.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Voluntariness / Miranda waiver of statements to investigators	State: Cahill gave adequate Miranda warnings; Burries knowingly and voluntarily answered before unequivocally invoking counsel.	Burries: Did not understand right to appointed counsel; officers should have rewarned/confirmed understanding.	Court: Waiver was knowing and voluntary under totality of circumstances; no suppression.
Admission of 2012 assault and related threats (Rule 404 and res gestae / inextricably intertwined)	State: 2012 assault and threats were part of the factual setting and necessary to present a coherent picture of motive, identity, and consciousness of guilt.	Burries: Evidence was propensity evidence, remote (17 months), and should be excluded under Rule 404/403.	Court: 2012 assault and prior threats were inextricably intertwined with the murder and admissible; no reversible error.
DNA expert testimony and cross-examination; ineffective assistance for failure to object	Burries: Expert presented inconclusive/minor-contributor evidence (one unexplained allele) that invites speculation; counsel was ineffective for not objecting and for eliciting that Burries could not be excluded.	State: Additional allele likely an artifact; evidence not equivalent to Johnson inconclusive samples.	Court: Evidence was functionally equivalent to inconclusive DNA but defense was not prejudiced given overwhelming other evidence; ineffective-assistance claim failed.
Admission of threatening letter to Howard and limiting instruction	Burries: Full unredacted letter admitted without clear Rule 404(2) purpose or specific limiting instruction; admission error and lack of required procedural showings under Rule 404.	State: Letter showed witness intimidation/consciousness of guilt and was highly probative; redaction not sought; error harmless given cumulative evidence.	Court: Admission procedural error (no specific Rule 404 purpose/instruction), but error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong cumulative evidence of guilt.

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (warnings are prerequisite to custodial interrogation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (Miranda waiver and invocation principles; officers not required to rewarn)
Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285 (1988) (adequate Miranda warnings can inform Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to counsel inquiry)
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (2015) (DNA testimony that permits speculation about a minor contributor without statistics is irrelevant and may mislead jurors)
State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 475 (2016) (discusses extrinsic-act admission and admission of statements as direct evidence versus 404(2) material)
State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 (2016) (inextricably intertwined doctrine for admitting threats or recent acts closely tied to charged crime)
State v. Clancy, 224 Neb. 492 (1987) (threats to a witness admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt)