State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477

Background

On Dec. 3, 2012, Janelle Yaunk was robbed and carjacked in Lincoln by three masked males; a pellet gun and abandoned vehicle were recovered nearby.
Alfredo V. Dominguez and Malique A. Stevens (both 15 at the time) were charged with robbery in consolidated district-court informations; Orlando Neal confessed and implicated then later recanted implicating Dominguez and Stevens.
Physical evidence: Stevens’ fingerprints were found on the exterior of the victim’s car; DNA from the pellet gun matched Dominguez; a cell phone belonging to another suspect was found in the abandoned vehicle.
The district court denied Dominguez’s motion to transfer the case to juvenile court after an evidentiary hearing considering Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43‑276 factors; the court found a sound basis to retain jurisdiction.
The court denied Dominguez’s motion to sever his trial from Stevens’, allowed impeachment of witnesses with prior inconsistent statements (over objection) in part, gave an aiding-and-abetting instruction, and the jury convicted Dominguez of robbery.
Dominguez was sentenced to 6–10 years’ imprisonment; he appealed, raising transfer, severance, impeachment, jury instruction, sufficiency of evidence, and excessiveness of sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dominguez)	Held
Transfer to juvenile court	District court’s §43‑276 findings supported retention given prior adjudications, escapes, treatment refusal, and public safety concerns	Case should transfer because juvenile system better serves rehabilitation for a 15‑year‑old	Denial of transfer affirmed; court had appropriate evidence and did not abuse discretion (retention supported)
Severance of trials	Joinder proper because both charged in same transaction; no specific prejudice shown	Fingerprint evidence against Stevens created risk jury would impermissibly infer Dominguez’s guilt; severance should have been granted	Denial affirmed; no compelling, specific, actual prejudice shown and joinder was proper
Impeachment of State witnesses with prior inconsistent statements	Impeachment of Neal was permissible because his trial testimony was material and impeachment was not a subterfuge to introduce inadmissible substantive evidence	Impeachment was improper artifice to introduce hearsay and prejudicial statements	Admission of Neal’s prior inconsistent statements affirmed (trial court did not abuse discretion); impeachment of Grant was excluded where appropriate
Aiding and abetting instruction	Instruction proper given evidence that more than one person participated and specific acts could have been aided	Instruction improper because evidence only supported direct participation or innocence, not aiding/abetting	Instruction upheld; jury could have found Dominguez aided or encouraged the robbery
Sufficiency of evidence	Physical evidence, victim ID, Neal and Grant testimony cumulatively supported conviction	Evidence insufficient to identify Dominguez as perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt	Conviction upheld; evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution sufficient
Sentence excessive	Sentence within statutory range; court considered mitigating factors but balanced public safety and history	6–10 years excessive given youth, lack of prior felonies, troubled childhood, rehabilitative needs	Sentence affirmed; within statutory limits and court did not abuse sentencing discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Goodwin, 278 Neb. 945 (considerations for transfer to juvenile court under §43‑276)
State v. Foster, 286 Neb. 826 (standards for joinder and severance of defendants)
State v. McPherson, 266 Neb. 715 (propriety of joint trials analysis)
State v. Brehmer, 211 Neb. 29 (limits on impeaching one’s own witness; no‑artifice rule)
State v. Marco, 220 Neb. 96 (impeachment by party calling witness and misuse to introduce substantive hearsay)
State v. Spidell, 194 Neb. 494 (when aiding-and-abetting instruction is proper)