State v. Eagle Elk, A-15-834

On Feb 13-14, 2014, juvenile inmate Dylan Cardeilhac attacked corrections officer Amanda Baker in a detention-center cell using a choke hold; Baker later died from her injuries.
Guy Eagle Elk, then 16, was charged with aiding and abetting first-degree assault based on evidence he and Cardeilhac had planned an escape that involved incapacitating an officer, and Eagle Elk allegedly encouraged and demonstrated the choke hold.
Eagle Elk admitted in a police interview that he discussed which officer to attack, demonstrated a choke hold, pressured Cardeilhac to carry out the plan, and threatened him if he did not act.
The State introduced video evidence (exhibit 75) showing Cardeilhac performing the choke hold on Baker; Eagle Elk moved in limine to exclude the video as unduly prejudicial but the court admitted it.
A jury convicted Eagle Elk of aiding and abetting first-degree assault; the district court sentenced him to 25–30 years’ imprisonment. Eagle Elk appealed admission of the video, sufficiency of evidence, and excessiveness of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Eagle Elk)	Held
Admissibility of video (exhibit 75)	Video was relevant to show method of attack and Eagle Elk’s involvement; State entitled to present a coherent picture of events.	Video was unnecessary because Eagle Elk offered to stipulate to the assault and was unfairly prejudicial/gruesome.	Court affirmed admission: video relevant to method and involvement; prejudicialness did not reach "unfair" level.
Sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting first-degree assault	Evidence showed planning, encouragement, demonstration of choke hold, threats, and corroborating admissions by Eagle Elk—sufficient to prove aiding and abetting.	Cardeilhac’s trial testimony denied Eagle Elk’s involvement and suggested independent action; Eagle Elk argued lack of intent to escape negates culpability.	Court held evidence sufficient: credibility is for jury; encouragement and assistance supported conviction.
Excessive sentence (25–30 years)	Sentence within statutory limits and court properly considered mitigating and aggravating factors (age, history, offense nature).	Court failed to adequately weigh youth, immaturity, lack of adult record, and level of culpability.	Court affirmed sentence: no abuse of discretion; sentencing court considered relevant factors and Eagle Elk’s extensive juvenile history.

State v. Freemont, 284 Neb. 179, 817 N.W.2d 277 (2012) (trial court discretion governs admission of gruesome evidence; State may present a coherent picture of events)
State v. Schreck, 224 Neb. 650, 399 N.W.2d 830 (1987) (defining aiding and abetting; encouragement or assistance is sufficient)
State v. France, 279 Neb. 49, 776 N.W.2d 510 (2009) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility when reviewing sufficiency)
State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88, 871 N.W.2d 243 (2015) (appellate review of sentence: will not disturb within statutory limits absent abuse of discretion)