State v. Case, 304 Neb. 829

Defendant Trevor S. Case, while incarcerated in Lancaster County Jail, left his cell and confronted former cellmate Kenneth Burley on Feb 16, 2018; a videotaped fight ensued.
Jail surveillance video and a recorded jail phone call (three days later) were admitted at trial; the phone call included Case saying, “I went for him.”
Case was charged with and convicted by a jury of assault by a confined person (Class IIIA felony); sentenced to 365 days in jail plus 12 months postrelease supervision.
At trial Case objected that the phone recording was produced to defense one day before trial in violation of the court’s discovery order; the court admitted the recording and Case did not request a continuance.
Case requested a self-defense instruction; the court refused, concluding Case initiated the confrontation by leaving his cell and approaching Burley.
On appeal Case challenged (1) refusal of the self-defense instruction, (2) admission of the phone recording as a discovery violation, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by refusing a self-defense instruction	State: evidence showed Case unjustifiably placed himself in harm’s way so instruction not warranted	Case: any evidence of threat or jab by Burley required giving self-defense instruction	Court: refused instruction properly; evidence did not support a legally cognizable self-defense theory because Case initiated contact
Whether admission of jail phone recording violated discovery rules	State: recording produced (albeit belatedly); remedy was continuance, not exclusion	Case: late disclosure violated discovery order and warranted exclusion	Court: no error; Case waived relief by not requesting a continuance after the court overruled his objection
Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction	State: video, witness testimony, and Case’s recorded statement supported elements	Case: he acted in self-defense and lacked culpable intent	Court: evidence, viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, was sufficient for conviction

State v. Bigelow, 303 Neb. 729 (addresses standard for reviewing jury instructions)
State v. Hatfield, 933 N.W.2d 78 (Neb.) (trial court discretion on discovery sanctions; failure to seek continuance waives relief)
State v. Kinser, 252 Neb. 600 (explains that a self-defense instruction is required only where there is evidence supporting a legally cognizable theory of self-defense)
State v. Urbano, 256 Neb. 194 (holding that placing oneself unjustifiably in harm’s way can defeat self-defense)
State v. Marshall, 253 Neb. 676 (defendant who left a safe place to confront others cannot claim self-defense)
State v. Smith, 284 Neb. 636 (treats self-defense as an affirmative defense under Nebraska statute)
State v. Stubbendieck, 302 Neb. 702 (explains appellate sufficiency-of-evidence standard in criminal cases)