State v. Buttercase, 893 N.W.2d 430

Background

Joseph J. Buttercase was convicted in Gage County of multiple felonies; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
He filed a motion (Dec. 9, 2015) in the district court seeking return of various seized personal items (electronics, clothing, media, etc.).
At the Jan. 20, 2016 hearing the State noted Buttercase had a pending federal child‑pornography prosecution and a state postconviction motion then pending before the Nebraska Supreme Court.
The district court denied the return motion, reasoning items might be needed as evidence in the pending federal prosecution or in postconviction proceedings and it would be premature to release property.
Buttercase appealed, arguing (1) pending postconviction and federal matters do not qualify as "any trial" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑818, (2) the State should have identified which items were needed and returned the rest, and (3) the judge was biased.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, finding postconviction and the federal prosecution supplied a legitimate government interest in retaining the seized property and rejecting the bias claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Buttercase)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether pending postconviction proceedings or parallel federal prosecution qualify as a "trial" under § 29‑818 so property may be retained	Postconviction and federal matters are not "any trial" and thus do not justify continued retention	Postconviction proceedings can require evidence (may lead to new trial/resentencing) and federal prosecution is an active criminal trial risk	Court: Postconviction proceedings are equivalent to a "trial" for § 29‑818 purposes and a pending federal prosecution also justifies retention; no abuse of discretion
Whether the court (or State) was required to parse seized items and return portions not needed for pending proceedings	Court or State should identify which items are unnecessary and return them	§ 29‑818 requires only that property be kept if it "may be required" as evidence; showing a possibility suffices	Court: Not required to parse items; finding that items may be needed was sufficient; no abuse of discretion
Whether the district judge was biased, requiring disqualification or reversal	Multiple rulings and social connections (victim’s social post re: judge golfing with prosecutor, alleged one‑sided admonishment, trial rulings) show bias	Alleged facts known earlier; social ties and prior rulings alone do not create a reasonable appearance of partiality; no timely recusal request	Court: Waiver for failing to timely raise bias; allegations insufficient under objective standard; no disqualification

Key Cases Cited

State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445 (government must show legitimate reason to retain seized property)
State v. Dubray, 24 Neb. App. 67 (presumption in favor of return once criminal proceedings conclude unless government shows continuing interest)
Young v. Govier & Milone, 286 Neb. 224 (judge must recuse where impartiality might reasonably be questioned)