State v. Cardeilhac, 293 Neb. 200

Background

In Feb 2014, 15-year-old Dylan Cardeilhac (juvenile detainee) strangled correctional officer Amanda Baker in the juvenile section of the Scotts Bluff County Detention Center; autopsy: asphyxia by manual strangulation.
State charged first-degree murder; jury convicted Cardeilhac of second-degree murder after being instructed on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and unintentional manslaughter.
At jury-instruction conference, defense objected to an instruction stating jurors "may" separate only if no verdict by 9:00 p.m.; court overruled and gave instruction as part of standard deliberation directions.
After verdict, a juror submitted an affidavit alleging a juror performed a choking "re-enactment" during deliberations and that she changed her vote thereafter; district court excluded most affidavit content under Neb. Evid. R. 606 and denied a new trial.
At sentencing, the court heard mitigation including expert testimony on adolescent brain/development and considered age, mentality, background, motivation, violence involved, and imposed 60 years to life (with parole eligibility), consecutive to another robbery sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cardeilhac)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Jury instruction requiring deliberation until 9:00 p.m.	Instruction coerced jurors to decide early and was unduly coercive	Instruction was routine, noncoercive, and jury could request an earlier break	Court: No error — instruction not coercive in context; jurors didn’t request early break and returned verdict at ~7:30 p.m.
Juror misconduct based on choking reenactment	Reenactment introduced extraneous prejudicial information and warrants new trial	Reenactment was internal testing of the evidence (not extraneous); affidavit mostly barred by Rule 606	Court: No misconduct shown; district court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial and in declining evidentiary hearing
Whether Rule 606 barred juror affidavit testimony	(implicit) affidavit described deliberation matters but contained possible allegation of extraneous information	Rule 606 precludes juror testimony about deliberative matters except to show extraneous prejudicial information or outside influence	Court: Properly excluded most affidavit; only parts arguably admissible were reviewed and found not to show extraneous information
Excessive sentence / Miller v. Alabama application to term-of-years	Miller protections require individualized juvenile sentencing; long term-of-years (60+ years) effectively life and should be vacated/remanded	Cardeilhac was not sentenced to life without parole; court considered juvenile-specific mitigation and Miller factors; parole eligibility preserved	Court: Sentence within statutory limits and sentencing complied with Miller principles; no abuse of discretion — affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (mandatory life-without-parole for juveniles unconstitutional; requires individualized consideration)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (Miller requires states to give juvenile homicide offenders a chance for parole or otherwise provide Miller protections)
State v. Garza, 185 Neb. 445 (1970) (trial court coercion of deadlocked jury impermissible)
State v. Floyd, 272 Neb. 898 (2007) (external comments pressuring jurors to reach verdict can be coercive)
State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (2015) (burden and procedure for proving juror misconduct; evidentiary-hearing requirement when showing tends to prove serious misconduct)
State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985 (2002) (interpretation of "extraneous prejudicial information" under Rule 606)
State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (2014) (discussion of Miller’s individualized sentencing requirements)
State v. Ramirez, 287 Neb. 356 (2014) (statutory response to Miller for Class IA felonies; legislative scheme for juvenile homicide sentencing)
State v. Balisok, 123 Wash. 2d 114 (1994) (juror reenactment testing plausibility not extrinsic evidence)