State v. Buttercase
296 Neb. 304
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Joseph Buttercase was convicted in Gage County of multiple sexual-assault–related offenses; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 2013.
- In December 2015 Buttercase (pro se) moved in district court for return of various items seized at the time of investigation (electronics, clothing, media, notes, and other personal items).
- The State opposed return, citing a pending federal child-pornography prosecution and Buttercase’s pending state postconviction proceedings; the State asserted some items may be needed as evidence.
- At a January 2016 hearing Buttercase did not dispute the existence of the pending federal and postconviction matters or that some items might be needed, but argued some items could be returned and that the court was biased.
- The district court denied the motion as premature because items might be necessary for the federal prosecution or ongoing postconviction matter; Buttercase appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Buttercase) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pending postconviction or federal proceedings qualify as a "pending trial" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818 | Postconviction and collateral federal proceedings are not "pending trial" so seized property must be returned | Pending postconviction and federal prosecutions may require the evidence; § 29-818 allows retention while property may be needed as evidence | Court: Postconviction and pending federal criminal proceedings can qualify as "trial" for § 29-818 purposes; retention justified |
| Whether the court/State was required to parse and return parts of the property not needed for pending proceedings | Court must determine which items are unneeded and return those portions now | It is sufficient that property "may be" used as evidence; court reasonably declined to parse items at that time | Court: No abuse of discretion in declining to parse properties; showing that items may be needed suffices |
| Whether the State met its burden to show a legitimate continuing interest in the property | State failed to show a continuing interest; property should be returned (relying on Agee/Dubray presumption) | State pointed to pending federal and postconviction matters as legitimate continuing interests | Court: Because Buttercase did not dispute the pending matters, State rebutted the presumption; retention permissible |
| Whether district judge was biased and should have recused | Judge showed bias (denials of motions, social-media claim that judge "likes" victim, admonishments, cumulative conduct) | Allegations were known earlier, were not raised timely, and do not demonstrate objective appearance of partiality | Court: Bias claims waived for late raising and on merits are insufficient; no reasonable objective appearance of partiality |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445 (court explained government must show legitimate continuing interest to retain seized property)
- State v. Dubray, 24 Neb. App. 67 (Neb. App.) (applied Agee presumption that seized property should be returned after conclusion of proceedings absent government interest)
- Young v. Govier & Milone, 286 Neb. 224 (discusses judicial recusals and custody of seized property)
- Tierney v. Four H Land Co., 281 Neb. 658 (explains timeliness and waiver standards for judicial disqualification)