State v. Davis, 969 N.W.2d 861

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 (felony murder), robbery (later dismissed), conspiracy to commit robbery, and use of a deadly weapon.
Count charging conspiracy alleged Davis agreed to commit robbery and alleged as the overt act: "Robbery in pursuance of the conspiracy."
Key trial evidence: co‑defendant Alisia Cooke’s testimony describing a plan (social‑media setup, texts, entry, and division of stolen items), corroborating texts/cell‑tower records, and DNA evidence linking items and clothing to the scene.
The jury convicted Davis of first‑degree murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and use of a deadly weapon; he appealed raising three errors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the information fatally failed to allege an overt act in the conspiracy count	State: Alleging the substantive crime (robbery) as the overt act satisfies § 28‑202	Davis: Cannot allege the same crime as both the object and the overt act; information defective	Information sufficient; an overt act may be the completed substantive offense that is the object of the conspiracy
Sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions	State: Cooke’s testimony plus texts, cell‑tower data, and DNA evidence suffice to prove elements	Davis: Cooke’s documented dishonesty makes her testimony unreliable; convictions rest on untrustworthy evidence	Evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution; credibility determinations for jury
Whether the State improperly impeached its own witness (Skalberg) with a prior statement	State: Impeachment permissible to expose inconsistencies	Davis: State improperly used prior hearsay statement to impeach its own witness	Even if impeachment was improper, any error was harmless and did not affect the verdict

State v. Theisen, 306 Neb. 591, 946 N.W.2d 677 (2020) (overt act can be the substantive offense and suffices in an information)
State v. Marco, 230 Neb. 355, 432 N.W.2d 1 (1988) (information must allege one or more overt acts)
State v. Walker, 272 Neb. 725, 724 N.W.2d 552 (2006) (procedural rule on motion to quash for information defects)
State v. Coleman, 209 Neb. 823, 311 N.W.2d 911 (1981) (only fundamental defects in indictment/information preserved for first appellate challenge)
State v. Williams, 306 Neb. 261, 945 N.W.2d 124 (2020) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
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 inquiry focuses on whether the actual verdict is attributable to the error)
U.S. v. Gigante, 982 F. Supp. 140 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) (overt‑act requirement shows agreement progressed beyond mere talk)