State v. Cross, 900 N.W.2d 1

Shawn L. Cross was convicted by a jury in March 2010 of second-degree assault and use of a weapon; later adjudicated a habitual criminal and sentenced to 20–25 years.
Cross pursued direct appeal and postconviction relief; both were denied and previously litigated the same conflict-of-interest claim regarding early counsel Richard DeForge.
In December 2015 and again in March 2016 (both more than five years after the verdict), Cross filed pro se motions for a new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(5) alleging newly discovered evidence.
The district court dismissed the second motion without an evidentiary hearing under amended § 29-2102(2) for failing to set forth sufficient facts; Cross appealed.
Cross’s three asserted new-evidence grounds: (1) an aunt’s letter claiming prosecutorial coercion of her testimony, (2) victim Pacheco’s undocumented status and prior deposition, and (3) DeForge’s conflict of interest—each alleged to support a new trial.
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether dismissal without a hearing was proper and whether the motions met the timeliness and substance requirements of § 29-2103(4).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cross)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Proper standard of review when a new-trial motion is dismissed without a hearing under § 29-2102(2)	Trial court’s dismissal should be reviewed for abuse of discretion	De novo review is appropriate because court reviews sufficiency of pleading/facts (analogous to postconviction screening)	De novo review applies to dismissal without evidentiary hearing; abuse of discretion applies if denied after hearing
Whether Cross’s allegations were timely under amended § 29-2103(4) (motion filed >5 years after verdict)	New evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence and is substantial enough to have affected the verdict	Motion is untimely: either not new, discoverable earlier, or not sufficiently substantial to change result	Motion untimely: Cross failed prong one (reasonable diligence/newness) and therefore did not meet § 29-2103(4)
Sufficiency of supporting evidence to require an evidentiary hearing under § 29-2102(2)	Exhibits (a letter from aunt, prior deposition excerpts, and pleadings about counsel conflict) suffice to trigger hearing	Documents are not the statutorily required form (affidavits/depositions/oral testimony) or, even if considered, do not show facts which, if true, would materially affect substantial rights	Dismissal without a hearing was proper: supporting documents did not set forth sufficient facts to require a hearing

State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (abuse of discretion historically applied to denial of new-trial motions)
State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777 (discusses standards for new-trial motions)
State v. Archie, 273 Neb. 612 (deference to trial judge based on firsthand perspective of witnesses/evidence)
State v. Nolan, 292 Neb. 118 (postconviction screening: when a hearing is required and de novo review on appeal)
State v. Cook, 290 Neb. 381 (postconviction procedure and review principles)
State v. Hessler, 288 Neb. 670 (discussion of successive motions limitations in other contexts)
State v. Merchant, 285 Neb. 456 (precedent about new-trial pleading sufficiency)