State v. Cotton
299 Neb. 650
| Neb. | 2018Background
- On August 7, 2015, James Cotton shot and killed Trevor Bare during an altercation outside an apartment; police recovered a sawed-off shotgun (the murder weapon), a spent shotgun casing, and a broken piece of wood at the scene.
- Police executed a search warrant for the apartment above Bare’s; officers found methamphetamine in a closet along with envelopes and medication bottles bearing Cotton’s name.
- Cotton admitted shooting Bare but claimed self-defense (Bare allegedly advanced with a board and had threatened that if a gun were shown it should be used); state witnesses (Burnette and Labno) testified to facts supporting the State’s version.
- Cotton was charged with first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and (via a late amended information) possession of a controlled substance; all convictions were returned and Cotton received consecutive sentences including life for murder.
- Pretrial: Cotton moved to suppress certain evidence and moved to sever the drug count; the court denied suppression (no timely Fourth Amendment motion regarding drugs) and denied severance; trial resulted in guilty verdicts; Cotton appealed raising multiple errors including sufficiency of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance/conflict issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cotton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to sever drug count / admission of drug evidence | Joinder was proper or harmless because drug evidence was relevant to Cotton’s state (impairment) and would be admissible even in separate trial | Drug count unrelated to homicide; joinder allowed improper propensity evidence and caused severe prejudice | Denied; joinder caused no prejudice because drug evidence would have been admissible on self-defense/impeachment issues |
| Lawfulness of seizure / suppression of methamphetamine | Motion to suppress as to meth was not timely raised; defense waived Fourth Amendment challenge | State exceeded warrant scope by seizing meth; suppression required | Denied as waived under §29‑822; defendant failed to timely move to suppress |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree murder (premeditation) | Burnette and others provided testimony from which a jury could infer Cotton formed intent and acted with deliberation/premeditation | Shooting was instantaneous self‑defense; no evidence of premeditation | Conviction upheld; viewed in light most favorable to State, jury could find deliberate/premeditated malice |
| Ineffective assistance / conflict of interest re: defense counsel (and waiver) | Cotton knowingly, intelligently waived potential conflict on the record; any potential conflict was not sufficiently serious to overcome presumption in favor of counsel of choice; no prejudice shown | Trial counsel had an actual/personal conflict (connections to a witness) and failed to withdraw; waiver ineffective; counsel’s omissions prejudiced defense | Waiver found effective; court did not abuse discretion accepting waiver; potential conflict not sufficiently serious and Cotton failed to show prejudice — most ineffective‑assistance claims denied on record (some claims reserved for postconviction/evidentiary hearing) |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (comments on testimony being "scripted" / credibility) | Remarks were permissible summation and fair comment on credibility; any inaccuracy was not prejudicial given instructions and evidence strength | Prosecutor improperly expressed personal opinion about Cotton’s credibility and mischaracterized testimony, prejudicing Cotton; counsel ineffective for not objecting | No reversible misconduct: most comments treated as permissible credibility argument; an isolated improper credibility comment did not prejudice Cotton given jury instructions, the context, and strong evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henry, 292 Neb. 834 (Neb. 2016) (discusses standards for motions to sever and preservation of trial objections)
- State v. Foster, 286 Neb. 826 (Neb. 2013) (joinder analysis and relation to federal joinder rules)
- State v. Escamilla, 291 Neb. 181 (Neb. 2015) (defines elements of first degree murder and premeditation/deliberation analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Ehlers, 262 Neb. 247 (Neb. 2001) (balancing defendant’s right to chosen counsel against right to counsel free of conflicts; trial‑court discretion on disqualification)