State v. Clark, 315 Neb. 736

Angelina Clark was convicted in Nebraska district court of terroristic threats and third degree sexual assault following an incident involving threats with a box cutter and inappropriate touching of a minor, A.L.
The key events took place after Clark, heavily intoxicated, entered the apartment of Shauna Parker and A.L., later riding in a truck with them and assaulting A.L., leading to a confrontation at a convenience store.
During the confrontation, Clark threatened Parker with violence, used a box cutter, and made explicit verbal threats.
Clark was tried and convicted by an all-male jury; she did not object to jury composition at trial.
On appeal, Clark argued her constitutional rights were violated by the all-male jury, that the evidence was insufficient for terroristic threats, and her counsel was ineffective in several ways.
The Supreme Court of Nebraska moved the appeal to its docket and affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Issue	Clark's Argument	State's Argument	Held
All-male jury violated fair trial rights	The absence of any women on the jury violated her 6th & 14th Amendment rights; counsel was ineffective for not objecting	Clark waived objection by not raising it at trial; no evidence of systematic exclusion or discriminatory peremptory strikes	No constitutional violation; no evidence of discrimination or systematic exclusion; counsel not ineffective for failing to object
Sufficiency of evidence for terroristic threats	No direct evidence Clark intended to terrorize Parker, especially given her intoxication	Clark’s words, actions, and use of a box cutter showed intent to terrorize; voluntary intoxication not a defense	Evidence was sufficient for a rational trier to find intent to terrorize beyond a reasonable doubt
Ineffective assistance (failure to object to hearsay)	Counsel should have objected to Parker’s testimony about A.L.’s statements as hearsay	Statements were not hearsay; offered for context and to explain Parker’s actions	Testimony was admissible; any objection would have been meritless
Ineffective assistance (failure to move to exclude drug-reference testimony)	Counsel should have filed a motion in limine to keep out testimony about drug inquiry	Testimony wasn’t directly prejudicial; only failure to move in limine was claimed, not to object at trial	Even if motion in limine had been filed, lack of trial objection means no prejudice under claim

Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (systematic exclusion of women from juries violates Sixth Amendment)
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (prosecution cannot use peremptory challenges based solely on gender)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Saltzman, 235 Neb. 964 (intoxication defense requirements in Nebraska for specific intent crimes)
State v. Harris, 264 Neb. 856 (timing of juror challenges and waiver of objections)