State v. Davis, 310 Neb. 865

Victim Brent Quigley was found dead after a June 2018 home robbery; autopsy showed multiple stab wounds.
Raymond T. Davis was charged by information with first-degree murder (including felony murder), conspiracy to commit robbery, and use of a deadly weapon during a felony; the standalone robbery count was later dismissed by the State.
Key State witness Alisia Cooke testified that she, Davis, and co-defendant Christopher Reagan planned the robbery via a social-media ruse; Cooke said Davis joined the plan, helped gather items (including a Mag‑Lite), texted while she was inside the house, entered with Reagan, and was seen holding a knife or butcher block.
Corroborating evidence included social‑media/text messages, cell‑tower location data, and DNA links (e.g., Quigley’s DNA on a Mag‑Lite and on jeans found with Davis’s belongings; DNA from a knife under Quigley).
The State called Julie Skalberg, who testified about Davis’s arrival in Iowa; the prosecutor questioned her from a prior handwritten statement, eliciting that Davis or his companion said things were “getting crazy in Council Bluffs.” Defense objected as improper impeachment of the State’s own witness.
A jury convicted Davis on all counts; on appeal he argued (1) the conspiracy count failed to allege a proper overt act, (2) the evidence was insufficient (primarily because Cooke was dishonest), and (3) the State improperly impeached its own witness.

Issue	State's Argument	Davis's Argument	Held
Whether the information’s conspiracy count was fatally defective for failing to allege a proper overt act	Allegation that "Robbery in pursuance of the conspiracy" was an overt act is sufficient; Theisen permits using the substantive offense as the overt act	The information impermissibly used the agreement/underlying crime as the overt act and therefore failed to allege the overt‑act element	Information was sufficient; an overt act may be the substantive offense that is the object of the conspiracy
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions (murder, conspiracy, weapon enhancement)	Cooke’s testimony plus texts, cell‑tower data, and DNA provided sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt	Cooke’s credibility was too compromised (prior lies, drug use, plea deal) to support conviction; reliance on her testimony denied a fair trial	Evidence was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the State; credibility is for the jury, not appellate reweighing
Whether the State improperly impeached its own witness (Skalberg) with a prior statement about Council Bluffs	Generally a party may attack its own witness’s credibility; the statement was either not inconsistent or immaterial to the verdict	The prosecutor’s impeachment with a hearsay prior statement was improper and prejudicial	Even if improper, any error was harmless because Skalberg’s statement could not have affected the jury’s verdict

State v. Theisen, 306 Neb. 591, 946 N.W.2d 677 (2020) (overt act requirement may be satisfied by alleging the substantive crime that was the object of the conspiracy)
State v. Marco, 230 Neb. 355, 432 N.W.2d 1 (1988) (information must expressly allege one or more overt acts)
State v. Heitman, 262 Neb. 185, 629 N.W.2d 542 (2001) (an overt act tends to show a preexisting conspiracy and manifest intent)
State v. Williams, 306 Neb. 261, 945 N.W.2d 124 (2020) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477, 860 N.W.2d 732 (2015) (limits on impeaching one’s own witness with prior inconsistent statements)
State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801, 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021) (harmless‑error analysis focuses on whether the actual verdict is attributable to the error)
State v. Walker, 272 Neb. 725, 724 N.W.2d 552 (2006) (procedural mechanism and timing for challenging the form or content of an information)