State v. Devers, 306 Neb. 429

Background

On Jan. 6, 2018, Kyle LeFlore was shot and later died after an attempted robbery outside Reign Lounge; Larry Goynes fired the shot and stole jewelry, and Jason Devers was accused as the driver/aider.
Devers was charged with first-degree felony murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person; the jury convicted him of murder and weapon use but acquitted on possession; he received life plus 5 years consecutive.
Key trial evidence: eyewitness Piya Milton (rode in Devers’ vehicle, saw Goynes armed, reported Goynes said he shot the victim and Devers took a chain); two jailhouse informants who recounted Devers’ admissions; searches that recovered controlled substances and ammunition at Devers’ home and a T-shirt–wrapped handgun at Benson Towers.
Pretrial, Milton refused to answer at a court-ordered deposition citing safety; the court terminated the deposition, authorized re-deposition later, and denied Devers’ motion in limine to exclude her testimony (Devers did not seek a second deposition).
The court admitted drug evidence (with a limiting instruction that it be considered only to corroborate certain witnesses) and firearm evidence (with a continuing objection to some related testimony); final jury instruction broadened the limiting instruction to all seized controlled substances.
On appeal Devers challenged the deposition termination and Milton’s testimony, admission of drug and firearm evidence, sufficiency of evidence on intent/knowledge to rob and use a firearm, and asserted multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Devers)	Held
Whether court abused discretion by terminating Milton’s deposition and denying motion to exclude her testimony	Termination was lawful under criminal discovery statutes and the court offered a remedy (allowing a re-deposition); no prejudice shown	Termination was improper; because Milton refused to answer at deposition, she should have been excluded at trial	Affirmed: court acted within statutory authority, offered adequate remedy, and Devers waived some objections by failing to seek re-deposition
Admissibility of controlled substances seized from Devers’ home	Drug evidence was relevant to corroborate Milton and jailhouse informants and probative value outweighed any prejudice; limiting instruction protected jury use	Little probative value and high risk jury would infer drug-trafficking propensity, causing unfair prejudice	Affirmed: evidence relevant for corroboration; limiting instructions (viewed as a whole) avoided unfair prejudice
Admissibility of the handgun seized at Benson Towers	Circumstantial evidence tied the seized gun to the incident (timing, T-shirt wiping, matching ammo); probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice	Minimal direct connection between Devers and the Benson Towers gun; admission was unfairly prejudicial	Affirmed: circumstantial links gave sufficient probative value; any isolated reference to additional marijuana in the safe was harmless error
Sufficiency of evidence that Devers intended/ knew about robbery and knew Goynes would use a firearm	Evidence (Devers pointing out the target, waiting while Goynes left, Milton’s testimony Goynes was armed, and Devers’ admissions to jailhouse informant) supported aiding/abetting and natural & probable consequence theory	Milton and informants were unreliable; evidence only showed Devers was present or the driver, not that he knew or intended the robbery or firearm use	Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational juror could find Devers intended/ knew of the robbery and firearm use; aiding/abetting and natural-probable-consequence doctrine supported convictions
Ineffective assistance claims (selected claims raised on direct appeal)	Many claims were either unsupported by the record or insufficiently prejudicial; several claims require a postconviction record	Trial counsel failed in multiple respects (e.g., limiting-instruction objections, speedy-trial support, failing to present witnesses/expert testimony, coercion claims)	Court reviewed those claims apparent in the record and rejected them where meritless (e.g., limiting instruction, speedy-trial interlocutory appeal not available); many other claims were adequately alleged but the record was insufficient for direct-appeal resolution

Key Cases Cited

State v. Sierra, 305 Neb. 249 (trial court has broad discretion over discovery sanctions)
State v. Lierman, 305 Neb. 289 (Neb. Evid. Rules govern admissibility; framework for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. Mantich, 249 Neb. 311 (aider/abettor liable for crimes that are natural and probable consequences)
State v. Sellers, 279 Neb. 220 (firearm evidence inadmissible where minimal probative value and lack of connection creates undue prejudice)
State v. Montoya, 305 Neb. 581 (standard for sufficiency review in criminal convictions)
State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (requirements for stating ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)