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 filed a motion in the district court for return of various items seized as evidence (electronics, clothing, media, etc.).
- The State opposed return, citing a pending federal child-pornography prosecution and Buttercase’s pending postconviction proceedings in Nebraska as reasons to retain evidence.
- At a January 2016 hearing Buttercase appeared pro se by phone and did not dispute the existence of the federal and postconviction matters or that some items might be needed for those proceedings.
- The district court denied the motion, reasoning it might be premature to release items that could be necessary for the pending matters; Buttercase appealed, arguing the proceedings were not "trials," the State should have identified items not needed and returned them, and the judge was biased.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Buttercase) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pending postconviction proceedings and a federal prosecution qualify as a "trial" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-818 so seized property may be retained | Postconviction and collateral federal proceedings are not "any trial" under § 29-818; convictions were final | Postconviction proceedings can require evidentiary hearings (equivalent to a trial) and the federal prosecution was still pending, so evidence may be needed | Court held postconviction proceedings and the pending federal case may qualify as trials for § 29-818 purposes and justified retention of evidence |
| Whether the court/State was required to identify which seized items were unnecessary and return those portions | Court/state must parse items and return any not needed for pending matters | § 29-818 requires only that property be kept so long as necessary for evidence; showing a possibility of use is sufficient | Court held it was not an abuse of discretion to decline to parse items; finding a legitimate reason to retain (possibility of use) sufficed |
| Whether the State met its burden to show a continuing interest in retaining the property | State failed to produce evidence showing a legitimate continuing interest; property should be returned per Agee | State demonstrated pending proceedings that rebut presumptive entitlement to return | Court found Buttercase did not dispute existence of pending matters; State’s showing of pending cases rebutted presumption and justified retention |
| Whether the district judge was biased and should have been recused | Judge exhibited bias (prior rulings, social ties to prosecutor, admonishment in front of jury, denial of postconviction relief) | Allegations were known earlier and not timely raised; social ties and adverse rulings alone do not show bias; no objective appearance of partiality | Court held Buttercase waived timeliness and, on merits, allegations did not show objective appearance of bias; recusal denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445 (government must show legitimate reason to retain property after criminal proceedings end)
- State v. Dubray, 24 Neb. App. 67 (once proceedings conclude, defendant presumptively entitled to return absent evidence of adverse claim)
- Young v. Govier & Milone, 286 Neb. 224 (judicial recusal standards under Nebraska Revised Code of Judicial Conduct)
- Tierney v. Four H Land Co., 281 Neb. 658 (timeliness and waiver principles for judicial disqualification)
- State v. Hubbard, 267 Neb. 316 (familiarity among judges and attorneys does not alone create appearance of impropriety)