State v. Dubray, 883 N.W.2d 399

In February 2012 Dominick L. Dubray was arrested in connection with two murders; police seized various personal items from the residence during the investigation.
After conviction and exhaustion of direct appeal, Dubray moved (May 2015) for return of seized property not used at trial: two iPods, a black purse with cash, a Carhartt coat (2XL), gray athletic shoes (size 13), a wooden jewelry box with multiple rings/necklaces/watches, and a jewelry-holder with assorted jewelry.
At a June 24, 2015 hearing no evidence was introduced; counsel for the State orally asserted some items belonged to the murder victims but produced no documentary proof.
The district court ordered immediate return of the coat and shoes (conceded by the State) but denied return of the remaining items for "failure to prove ownership."
Dubray appealed the partial denial, arguing the district court erred and that his due process and property rights were violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dubray)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Dubray was entitled to return of property seized during investigation after criminal proceedings ended	Items were not used at trial and Dubray is presumptively entitled to their return	Dubray failed to prove ownership; some items likely belonged to victims; multiple household members lived at the residence	Reversed: once proceedings ended, Dubray was presumptively entitled to return and State must present evidence justifying continued retention
Burden of proof on motion for return of seized property	Burden should not fall on Dubray to reprove ownership after seizure	Burden on claimant where exclusive possession lacking and items appear more consistent with others' ownership	Court applied Agee: presumption favors claimant; State must show legitimate reason to retain
Whether the district court could rely on unsworn representations without evidence	Court should require the State to introduce evidence before denying return	State relied on counsel's representations about victim ownership and lack of time to investigate	Court held district court erred by denying motion without requiring State evidence
Whether due process claim needed resolution on remand	Dubray argued failure to notify of forfeiture proceedings violated due process	State argued it lacked time post-mandate to investigate ownership	Court declined to address due process because reversal and remand made it unnecessary

State v. Agee, 274 Neb. 445, 741 N.W.2d 161 (Neb. 2007) (when criminal proceedings end, claimant presumptively entitled to return; government must show reason to retain)
Flores v. Flores-Guerrero, 290 Neb. 248, 859 N.W.2d 578 (Neb. 2015) (appellate courts need not decide issues unnecessary to disposition)