State v. Davis, 862 N.W.2d 731

On July 9, 2012, Miguel Avalos and two of his sons were shot to death in Avalos’ Omaha home during an apparent attempted robbery; Avalos was a known drug dealer.
Prosecutor’s theory: Greg Logemann orchestrated the robbery and recruited Anthony D. Davis and Timothy Britt; witnesses placed Davis and Britt at the house the night of the killings.
Post‑incident statements and acts: Clairday (Davis’ ex) testified Davis admitted involvement and that a .22 revolver given to her was later recovered where she said it was hidden; Logemann testified Davis admitted involvement and later expressed concern about DNA on a gun.
Forensics: .22 and .40 caliber bullets recovered at the scene were consistent with the recovered revolver and semiautomatic pistol, though ballistic matches were inconclusive due to bullet condition.
Procedural posture: Davis was convicted by a jury of three counts of first‑degree murder (felony‑murder) and three counts of using a deadly weapon to commit a felony; he received three life sentences plus 75–90 years and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Davis)	Held
Whether a mistrial was required after a witness (Branch) unsolicitedly mentioned Davis had been in prison	The remark was fleeting, unsolicited, and cured by immediate objection, sustaining, and jury admonition	The single reference was prejudicial and could not be "unrung," requiring mistrial	Denied; court found admonition sufficient and no showing the remark affected outcome
Whether a mistrial was required due to alleged discovery violation when witness Clairday’s trial testimony differed from her deposition	No undisclosed contact or misconduct; inconsistencies were subject to effective cross‑examination	State withheld incriminating post‑deposition statements, prejudicing the defense and necessitating mistrial	Denied; record contained no evidence of nondisclosure/prosecutorial misconduct and Davis was able to cross‑examine on inconsistencies
Whether evidence was insufficient to support convictions (felony murder and weapon counts)	Sufficient circumstantial and testimonial evidence tied Davis to planning, presence at scene, post‑crime admissions, disposal of a weapon, and connection to firearms	Evidence was circumstantial and inconclusive (ballistics), insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt	Affirmed; viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

State v. Ramirez, 287 Neb. 356 (discussing admissibility of prior convictions)
State v. Sing, 275 Neb. 391 (evidence and prior‑act considerations)
State v. Robinson, 271 Neb. 698 (admonishment to jury can cure prejudicial references)
State v. Lotter, 255 Neb. 456 (unsolicited fleeting remarks and admonishment sufficiency)
State v. Kibbee, 284 Neb. 72 (when an event during trial may prevent a fair trial)
State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 (standards for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Harris, 263 Neb. 331 (disclosure obligations after proper request)
State v. Norman, 285 Neb. 72 (circumstantial evidence and appellate review)