State v. Fernandez, 986 N.W.2d 53

Fernandez was charged with theft by deception for using her sister’s debit card while the sister was in a coma; the bank statement and video evidence showed withdrawals/purchases totaling over $2,000, and Fernandez admitted withdrawing $2,900.
The information alleged the value of property taken was $1,500 or more but less than $5,000 (Class IV felony).
Jury Instruction No. 3 required the jury to decide the value and record it on the verdict form; the original form called for a specific dollar amount.
During deliberations the jury asked whether unanimity was required as to value; the court gave a supplemental instruction permitting the jury, if unable to agree on an exact number, to select a unanimous value range and supplied an amended verdict form listing three ranges ($.01–$499.99; $500–$1,499.99; $1,500–$4,999.99).
The jury returned a guilty verdict and circled the $1,500–$4,999.99 range; Fernandez was sentenced to 14 months and appealed, arguing the range instruction/amended form were erroneous and that trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting certain documents/witnesses.

Issue	Fernandez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by giving a supplemental instruction and amending the verdict form to allow value ranges rather than a single specific number	Jury must unanimously agree on a specific dollar value; range verdict permits nonunanimous outcomes and violates unanimity and pattern instruction guidance	Precedent permits proof of "some value" for conviction and use of ranges for grading; the instruction required unanimity as to the selected range	Court affirmed: range instruction and amended form were permissible; jury must (and here did) be unanimous as to the range and the verdict was supported by evidence
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present documents and witnesses	Counsel omitted evidence/witnesses that would have supported Fernandez's defense	Appellate assignment lacked the required specificity to allege deficient performance on direct appeal	Court declined to reach the merits: assignment insufficiently specific, so ineffective-assistance claim not considered on direct appeal

State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853 (Neb. 2020) (holds that § 28-518 requires proof of some value for theft conviction and permits jury findings by value ranges for grading)
State v. Gartner, 263 Neb. 153 (Neb. 2002) (interprets § 28-518(8) to require proof of intrinsic value but not necessarily a single specific amount for conviction)
State v. Almasaudi, 282 Neb. 162 (Neb. 2011) (applies Gartner: proof that property had some value suffices to sustain a theft conviction)
Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (U.S. 2020) (Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts for serious offenses; used as constitutional backdrop for unanimity arguments)