State v. Dixon, 286 Neb. 334

Background

In April 2009 J.K. was held captive and sexually assaulted for ~10 hours; she later identified Armon Dixon from a photographic array and at trial. Dixon was charged with first-degree sexual assault, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and robbery; convicted by a jury and designated a habitual criminal. Sentences totaled 80–140 years, imposed consecutively.
Investigative evidence: cell‑phone records placed Dixon’s phone near the victim’s apartment around the time of the assaults; employment time records and supervisor testimony raised questions about Dixon’s claimed work times; DNA from a T‑shirt excluded Dixon but fingernail scrapings did not exclude him.
Pretrial rulings excluded evidence of a prior conviction (Dixon I) under Neb. Evid. R. 404; at trial a detective testified about criteria used to compile the photo array, mentioning parolees/known sex offenders, prompting a defense mistrial motion.
Defense also moved for mistrial when prospective jurors may have seen Dixon in leg restraints during voir dire; the court investigated and had transport replace shackles with a brace.
At a suppression hearing the court found the photographic array was not unduly suggestive; the jury ultimately credited the victim’s in‑court identification and convicted. The court found Dixon a habitual criminal based on prior conviction records admitted at the enhancement hearing.

Issues

Issue	Dixon's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying mistrial for jurors seeing leg restraints	Shackling prejudiced jury and required mistrial	No prejudice; view uncertain and court promptly remedied with brace	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion; no demonstrated actual prejudice
Whether mistrial was required for detective’s testimony implying prior convictions/sex‑offender status	Testimony violated pretrial exclusion and was so prejudicial an admonition couldn’t cure it	Testimony was general, not tied to Dixon’s convictions; no irreparable prejudice	Denial affirmed — no actual prejudice shown and discretion not abused
Whether photographic array/identification should have been suppressed	Array was unduly suggestive; victim’s in‑court ID unreliable	No improper law‑enforcement suggestion; any reliability issues for jury	Suppression denial affirmed — no affirmative police misconduct; reliability for jury to decide
Whether evidence was sufficient / whether directed verdict should have been granted	Without ID evidence insufficient; conflicts undermine verdict	Other circumstantial evidence (phone, access to gloves, work record issues) supports conviction	Denial affirmed — viewing evidence for State, rational trier could convict
Whether State proved prior convictions for habitual‑criminal enhancement	State failed to prove identity/convictions beyond preponderance	Prior conviction records (same name/dates) sufficient; defendant offered no contrary evidence	Habitual‑criminal finding affirmed — State met burden and Dixon I controls
Whether sentences were excessive / should run concurrently	Sentences excessive given family, work, background; robbery ancillary so should be concurrent	Sentences within statutory limits; court considered factors and may order consecutive terms	Sentences affirmed — within statutory limits and no abuse of discretion; consecutive terms not an abuse

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mata, 266 Neb. 668 (Neb. 2003) (defendant should be free from shackles absent necessity)
State v. Nolan, 283 Neb. 50 (Neb. 2012) (discussing Perry and suppression standard for eyewitness ID)
State v. Dixon, 282 Neb. 274 (Neb. 2011) (Dixon I) (prior‑conviction proof used for habitual enhancement)
Perry v. New Hampshire, 132 S. Ct. 716 (U.S. 2012) (due process suppression of eyewitness ID requires police‑arranged undue suggestiveness)