State v. Buttercase, 296 Neb. 304

Joseph J. Buttercase was convicted in Gage County of multiple felonies; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
In December 2015 Buttercase filed a pro se motion in the district court for return of various items seized as evidence (electronics, clothing, media, notes, etc.).
The State opposed return, citing a pending federal child‑pornography prosecution and a postconviction proceeding then pending before the Nebraska Supreme Court.
At the January 2016 hearing Buttercase did not dispute the existence of the pending proceedings and acknowledged some items might be needed, but asked that portions not needed be returned.
The district court denied the motion, reasoning it was premature to release items that might be necessary for the other proceedings.
Buttercase appealed, arguing (1) postconviction and federal proceedings are not “pending trials” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑818, (2) the court/State should have identified and returned items not needed, and (3) the judge was biased; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pending postconviction and federal prosecutions qualify as "any trial" under § 29‑818	Postconviction and collateral federal proceedings are not "pending trials," so § 29‑818 no longer justifies retention	Postconviction proceedings can require evidence; federal prosecution may need items — State has continuing interest	Held: Postconviction proceedings qualify as a “trial” for § 29‑818 purposes and pending federal prosecution supports retention; court did not abuse discretion
Whether court/State was required to parse seized items and return portions not needed	Court/State should identify which items are unnecessary to pending proceedings and return them	§ 29‑818 requires only that property be kept so long as it "may be used as evidence"; court reasonably declined to parse items given pending matters	Held: Court did not abuse discretion by declining to parse and release portions at that time
Whether the district judge was biased and should have been disqualified	Multiple past rulings, alleged social relationships, admonishment, and social‑media message show bias	Alleged facts were known earlier and not raised timely; social connections and rulings alone do not show objective appearance of partiality	Held: Arguments waived for untimeliness; even on merits allegations insufficient to show bias

State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445 (government must show legitimate reason to retain seized property)
State v. Dubray, 24 Neb. App. 67 (once criminal proceedings conclude, presumptive right to return property absent government interest)
Young v. Govier & Milone, 286 Neb. 224 (judge must recuse when impartiality might reasonably be questioned)
State v. Hubbard, 267 Neb. 316 (knowledge/socializing among judge and local bar does not alone create appearance of impropriety)