State v. Esch, 858 N.W.2d 219

Trent R. Esch was convicted by jury of criminal mischief (damage to a patrol car) and use of a weapon to commit a felony; jury found pecuniary loss $7,500.
On first appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the criminal mischief conviction but vacated the sentence and remanded for a new trial on pecuniary loss (which determines grade) and vacated the use-of-weapon conviction, concluding double jeopardy did not bar retrial.
On remand Esch waived a jury and submitted a written stipulation and waiver; no other evidence was offered at the bench proceeding. The stipulation acknowledged loss exceeded $1,500 and recommended reinstatement of the prior sentence (including $7,500 restitution).
The district court found Esch guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of felony criminal mischief and use of a weapon to commit a felony, and ordered the same sentences and $7,500 restitution.
Esch appealed the use-of-weapon conviction and the $7,500 restitution order; appeal focuses on sufficiency of evidence at the new trial and the precision required for restitution payment terms.

Issue	Esch's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conviction of use of a weapon to commit a felony	At the new trial, the State offered only the stipulation; Esch argued that was insufficient to prove use of a weapon	The State argued the remand was limited to pecuniary loss issues and/or that use-of-weapon was an established fact from the first trial	Reversed use-of-weapon conviction; evidence at the new trial was insufficient and Double Jeopardy bars retrial
Validity and amount of $7,500 restitution and manner of payment	Esch argued insufficient evidence supported $7,500 because stipulation only said loss exceeded $1,500	The State relied on the prior jury finding of $7,500 and the parties’ stipulation recommending prior sentence	Amount affirmed: Esch’s stipulation and waiver support the $7,500 restitution; but remanded for resentencing to specify manner of payment per statute

State v. Ash, 286 Neb. 681 (2013) (Double Jeopardy retrial analysis — retrial allowed only if evidence admitted would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict)
State v. Matit, 288 Neb. 163 (2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Mettenbrink, 3 Neb. App. 7 (1994) (restitution orders must state precise terms, including manner of payment)