State v. Castaneda
287 Neb. 289
| Neb. | 2014Background
- Castaneda, a juvenile, was convicted in Omaha of multiple 2008 shootings (two murders, attempted murder, robbery, weapons offenses, conspiracy).
- Nebraska life-without-parole sentences for first-degree murder were imposed; the court treated them as effectively life without parole.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the life-without-parole sentences as unconstitutional under Miller and remanded for resentencing under LB 44.
- The Court vacated all other sentences due to plain error in conjoining them, remanding for resentencing.
- Evidentiary and procedural issues arose on appeal, including whether jurors could review Exhibit 201, polygraph evidence, cell records, fingerprint evidence, and an Internet news report.
- LB 44 amendments introduced new sentencing ranges and parole considerations for juveniles; the court analyzed ex post facto implications and resentencing under the amended scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing jury review of Exhibit 201 was reversible error | Castaneda asserts review was testimonial and improper | State contends it was substantive evidence and proper under limits | Not error; court did not abuse discretion; exhibit viewed in open court with counsel |
| Whether excluding Cervantes' polygraph results violated defense rights | Castaneda argues he should cross-examine about polygraph failure | State argues polygraph results are generally inadmissible | Assignment lacks merit; exclusion proper; no due process violation |
| Whether cell phone records authentication was proper | Challenge to authentication under Rule 901 | Taylor–style authentication suffices | Assignment without merit; records properly authenticated |
| Whether fingerprint evidence and AFIS testimony were properly admitted | Challenge to AFIS-based testimony and hearsay concerns | Weight of evidence for jury; proper foundation | Not reversible; testimony properly admitted; harmless to weight |
| Whether LB 44 and Miller require resentencing under ex post facto analysis | Miller applies; life-without-parole unconstitutional for juveniles | LB 44 could provide parol avenues; not ex post facto | Miller retroactively applicable; LB 44 does not violate ex post facto; resentencing required |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (limits on excluding relevant evidence to avoid undue prejudice)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (juvenile life without parole for nonhomicide violates Eighth Amendment)
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory life without parole for juveniles unconstitutional)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1987) (retroactivity of new rules for direct review)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1998) (categorical exclusion of polygraph evidence not arbitrary)
- State v. Taylor, 282 Neb. 297 (Neb. 2011) (business records authentication; Taylor as binding on 901 authentication)
- State v. Riley, 281 Neb. 394 (Neb. 2011) (polygraph mention may bolster credibility; mistrial decision)
- State v. Dixon, 259 Neb. 976 (Neb. 2000) (polygraph admissibility limitations)
- Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1977) (ex post facto considerations in punishment schemes)