State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304

Background

Joseph Buttercase was convicted in Gage County of multiple offenses (first‑degree sexual assault, false imprisonment, strangulation, third‑degree domestic assault); convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
He later filed a motion (Dec. 9, 2015) seeking the return of various personal items seized by police, including electronics, clothing, media, and other personal property.
The State opposed return, asserting ongoing proceedings: a pending federal child‑pornography prosecution and Buttercase’s pending state postconviction proceedings.
At a hearing, the district court denied the motion, finding the property "may be necessary" for the federal and postconviction matters and thus it would be premature to release items.
Buttercase appealed, arguing (1) postconviction and federal proceedings are not "any trial" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑818, (2) the court/state should have segregated and returned items not needed, and (3) the judge was biased.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pending postconviction and federal prosecutions qualify as a "trial" under § 29‑818 so seized property may be retained	Postconviction and federal prosecutions are not "any pending trial," so property should be returned	Postconviction proceedings and the pending federal prosecution may require evidence; § 29‑818 permits retention while property may be used as evidence	Held: Postconviction proceedings can be the functional equivalent of a trial for § 29‑818 purposes, and a pending federal prosecution likewise may justify retention; denial affirmed
Whether the court/State was required to parse seized items and return portions not needed for pending proceedings	Court/State should have determined which items were unnecessary and returned those portions	The statute requires only that property be kept so long as it "may be required" as evidence; court reasonably declined to parse items without final disposition of related proceedings	Held: Court did not abuse discretion by refusing to parse items and retain all potentially relevant evidence
Whether the State met its burden to show a legitimate continuing interest in the property	State failed to present specific evidence justifying continued retention; Agee requires proof to retain after proceedings conclude	State pointed to ongoing federal prosecution and postconviction matter as legitimate bases for continued retention; defendant did not dispute existence of those proceedings	Held: Under the circumstances the presumption favoring return was rebutted; State showed legitimate continuing interest, so retention was justified
Whether the district judge was biased requiring recusal or reversal	Judge was biased (denied postconviction hearing, admonished in front of jury, social media claim that judge "likes" victim, social contact with prosecutor)	Allegations known earlier but not raised timely; judge’s prior rulings or social acquaintances alone do not show bias; objective standard not met	Held: Defendant waived timely challenge and even on merits allegations fail to show objective appearance of partiality; no recusal required

Key Cases Cited

State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445, 741 N.W.2d 161 (government must show legitimate reason to retain seized property after proceedings conclude)
State v. Dubray, 24 Neb. App. 67, 883 N.W.2d 399 (once proceedings conclude, presumptive right to return of seized property absent adverse claim)
Young v. Govier & Milone, 286 Neb. 224, 835 N.W.2d 684 (judicial‑conduct/recusal standards)
State v. Pattno, 254 Neb. 733, 579 N.W.2d 503 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for certain rulings)
Tierney v. Four H Land Co., 281 Neb. 658, 798 N.W.2d 586 (timeliness and waiver in judicial disqualification claims)
State v. Barranco, 278 Neb. 165, 769 N.W.2d 343 (objective standard for evaluating alleged judicial bias)
State v. Hubbard, 267 Neb. 316, 673 N.W.2d 567 (knowledge or social contacts between judge and attorneys alone do not demonstrate bias)