State v. Buttercase
296 Neb. 304
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Joseph J. Buttercase was convicted in Gage County of multiple sexual and assault offenses; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 2013.
- In December 2015 Buttercase (pro se) moved in the district court for the return of various seized items (clothing, electronics, media, notes, etc.).
- The State opposed return, citing a pending federal child‑pornography prosecution and a postconviction motion then pending in Nebraska state court as reasons to retain evidence.
- At a January 2016 hearing Buttercase did not dispute the existence of the pending federal and postconviction proceedings and acknowledged some items might be needed; the district court denied the motion as premature because items might be needed in those proceedings.
- Buttercase appealed, arguing (1) postconviction and federal matters are not "pending trials" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑818, (2) the court/State should have parsed which items were unnecessary and returned those, and (3) the judge was biased.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Buttercase) | Defendant's Argument (State / District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pending postconviction and federal prosecutions qualify as "any trial" under § 29‑818 | Postconviction and collateral federal proceedings are not "pending trials," so seized property must be returned | Postconviction proceedings and the pending federal criminal case may require evidence; § 29‑818 allows retention while evidence may be needed | Court: Postconviction proceedings can be equivalent to a "trial" for § 29‑818 purposes and the pending federal prosecution may require evidence; denial not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the court/State had to parse seized items and return those not needed | Court must determine which items are unnecessary and return them | § 29‑818 requires only that property be kept so long as it may be required as evidence; court reasonably found items may be needed and need not parse now | Court: No abuse of discretion in declining to parse items; showing that property "may be used as evidence" suffices |
| Whether the State met its burden to show a legitimate reason to retain property | State failed to show a continuing interest or other lawful reason to retain non‑contraband property | State pointed to pending proceedings that could legitimately require the items | Court: Because Buttercase did not contest existence of pending proceedings, the State met its burden; presumption rebutted |
| Whether the judge was biased, requiring recusal or reversal | Judge biased based on prior rulings, social contacts, admonishments, and other conduct | Allegations were known earlier, not raised timely at hearing; socializing with attorneys and rulings do not alone show bias | Court: Waiver for late assertion; even on merits allegations insufficient to show objective appearance of bias |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445, 741 N.W.2d 161 (2007) (government must show legitimate reason to retain seized property after proceedings end)
- State v. Dubray, 24 Neb. App. 67, 883 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. Ct. App. 2016) (once criminal proceedings conclude, defendant presumptively entitled to return absent evidence of adverse claim)
- Young v. Govier & Milone, 286 Neb. 224, 835 N.W.2d 684 (2013) (judicial recusal standard and when impartiality might reasonably be questioned)
- Tierney v. Four H Land Co., 281 Neb. 658, 798 N.W.2d 586 (2011) (timeliness and waiver principles for disqualification claims)
- State v. Hubbard, 267 Neb. 316, 673 N.W.2d 567 (2004) (familiarity between judge and local bar does not, alone, create appearance of impropriety)