State v. Connelly, 307 Neb. 495

Background:

On Sept. 21, 2018 Omaha officers arrested Jeremiah Connelly for driving a vehicle matching a stolen-car report; he was handcuffed and taken to the station but not given Miranda warnings at that time.
While waiting in the lobby and later in an interview room with Sgt. Tammy Mitchell, Connelly spontaneously volunteered that he had dumped a woman’s body in Fremont and made multiple incriminating statements about the killing.
A homicide detective, David Preston, later read Miranda warnings, obtained Connelly’s verbal waiver (Connelly did not sign the form), and elicited a detailed post-warning confession; Connelly led officers to the body and other evidence locations.
Connelly was charged with first-degree murder and tampering with physical evidence; he moved to suppress both pre- and post-Miranda statements on Miranda, voluntariness, coercion, and unlawful-arrest grounds.
The district court denied suppression (finding no custodial interrogation before warnings, admissibility under public-safety doctrine unnecessary to decide, and a voluntary post-warning waiver); a jury convicted Connelly and he appealed.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Connelly)	Held
Whether pre-Miranda statements were the product of custodial interrogation requiring suppression	Statements were volunteered; questioning by Mitchell was neutral/clarifying, not the functional equivalent of interrogation	Mitchell’s questions were designed to elicit incriminating responses while Connelly was in custody and before Miranda warnings	Held: Pre-Miranda statements were volunteered, not custodial interrogation; admissible
Whether the public-safety (rescue) exception justified admission of pre-Miranda statements	If necessary, public-safety exception would apply to protect potential victim(s)	Exception not applicable; Miranda warnings required	Court did not decide the exception’s applicability because it found no interrogation; admission affirmed without ruling on rescue doctrine
Whether post-Miranda statements were tainted by an unlawful two-step (ask-first, warn-later) Seibert tactic	Post-warning waiver cured any prior defect; no Seibert two-step because no prior interrogation by Mitchell	Officers used an ask-first, warn-later approach that under Seibert makes later confession inadmissible	Held: No Seibert problem because there was no pre-warning interrogation; post-Miranda statements admissible
Whether Connelly’s statements were involuntary (totality of circumstances; alleged mental illness)	Statements were coherent, detailed, and not the product of threats, promises, or coercion; jury instruction protected voluntariness review	Connelly’s reported voices, erratic behavior, and inconsistent details show mental illness rendering confession involuntary	Held: Sufficient evidence supported voluntariness; no showing of coercion or incapacity to make voluntary statements

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes custodial-interrogation warnings and waiver requirements)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (defines "interrogation" to include words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) (recognizes public-safety exception to Miranda)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (addresses "question-first, warn-later" two-step interrogation and its effect on post-warning confessions)
State v. Rodriguez, 272 Neb. 930 (2007) (Nebraska application of custodial-interrogation and volunteered-statement principles)
State v. Bormann, 279 Neb. 320 (2010) (articulates objective standard for interrogation and review framework)
State v. Lamb, 213 Neb. 498 (1983) (volunteered statements and neutral clarifying questions distinguishable from interrogation)
State v. Dickson, 223 Neb. 397 (1986) (mental illness is a relevant factor in voluntariness analysis but does not create a per se rule invalidating confessions)
State v. Guzman, 305 Neb. 376 (2020) (controls standard of review for suppression rulings)