State v. Figures, 957 N.W.2d 161

Background

Defendant Phillip Figures was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and felony use of a firearm for the July 15, 2018 killing of Fredrick Green; sentence: life plus 40–50 years consecutive.
State’s case relied principally on Vanessa (Figures’ then-wife), who testified Figures admitted involvement and described events; her testimony was corroborated by police investigation, autopsy, DNA testing, cell-phone data/metadata, video surveillance, and other witnesses.
Defense emphasized alternative perpetrator theory (Akil Williams), eliciting testimony about Williams’ relationship with the victim, flight from the scene, and alleged motive; Figures did not testify or present his own witnesses.
Pretrial and trial disputes included Figures’ repeated motions to replace appointed counsel, a request to possess physical discovery while incarcerated, last‑minute witness disclosures, and evidentiary fights over threats, an alleged failed drug deal, doorbell-camera footage, and officers’ recounting of Vanessa’s statements.
During trial the court dismissed a juror mid‑trial for suspected improper contact, Figures left the courtroom voluntarily for part of testimony, the State played disputed doorbell footage, and Figures moved for a mistrial after closing; appellate counsel raised numerous ineffective-assistance claims based on trial counsel’s strategy and omissions.

Issues

Issue	Figures' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Trial counsel removal	Counsel was incompetent; court applied too strict a standard and should have appointed new counsel	Figures failed to show good cause; mere dissatisfaction insufficient	Court did not abuse discretion; no good‑cause shown for substitute counsel
Physical copies of discovery	As an incarcerated defendant, Figures needed physical copies to meaningfully consult discovery	Local practice allowed dissemination via counsel; statute permits inspection but does not require providing copies to incarcerated defendant	Denial of physical possession not an abuse of discretion
Mid‑trial juror dismissal (only African‑American juror)	Dismissal lacked record support and implicated Batson concerns	Court had factual basis (juror contradictions, possible contact); dismissal for cause, not peremptory	Court did not abuse discretion; no Batson violation
Presentation of State’s case while Figures absent	Right to be present violated; absence was not knowingly waived	Figures voluntarily left the courtroom and thus waived right to be present for that portion	Waiver was voluntary; no error
Admission of character evidence (threats/drug deal) and officers repeating Vanessa’s statements	Threats and drug deal testimony were improper character evidence; officers’ repetition of Vanessa’s statements was hearsay	Threats were admissible as inextricably intertwined; drug deal not presented; officers’ testimony cumulative	Failed‑to‑object waived the threats claim; officers’ hearsay was error but harmless given cumulative testimony and other evidence
Motion for mistrial after rebuttal comments	Prosecutor’s rebuttal improperly suggested defense misled jury, warranting mistrial	Comments were hyperbolic, not prejudicial in context of the whole trial	Even if improper, remarks were isolated and not prejudicial; mistrial denial affirmed
Sufficiency of the evidence (corroboration of confession)	Vanessa’s account was essentially a confession and required corroboration under Scott	State produced independent corroboration (forensics, phone metadata, video, physical evidence, autopsy)	Evidence was sufficient for reasonable juror to convict
Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple specific claims)	Trial counsel failed to pursue continuances, object to/disqualify evidence, rigorously cross‑examine key witnesses, seek experts, present alibi, or move for new trial	Many alleged omissions lack record context, some objections would have been futile, and several claims were insufficiently specific on direct appeal	On the record, appellate court either found claims unsupported, waived, speculative, or insufficiently specific; no reversible IAC established

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes and frames burden shifting for such claims)
State v. Bratton, 187 Neb. 460 (Neb. 1971) (discusses standards for substitution or removal of appointed counsel)
State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (Neb. 2019) (requires specificity in ineffective‑assistance assignments on direct appeal)
State v. Scott, 200 Neb. 265 (Neb. 1977) (a voluntary confession needs slight corroboration to establish corpus delicti and guilt)
State v. Huff, 298 Neb. 522 (Neb. 2017) (trial court has broad discretion to discharge juror for cause when impartiality is doubtful)
State v. Clausen, 307 Neb. 968 (Neb. 2020) (standards for deciding ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. Sundquist, 301 Neb. 1006 (Neb. 2019) (defendant need not allege prejudice on direct appeal but must specify counsel’s deficient acts)
State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 (Neb. 2016) (evidence inextricably intertwined with charged offense may be admissible despite character‑evidence rules)
Crowder v. Aurora Co‑op Elevator Co., 223 Neb. 704 (Neb. 1986) (standards for admissibility of summaries/exhibits derived from voluminous underlying records)