State v. Glass, 298 Neb. 598

Background

In 1999 Greg A. Glass was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and using a firearm to commit a felony for the 1998 fatal shooting of his former employer, Adolph Fentress, Sr.; Glass testified self-defense.
At trial the jury received a "step" instruction that directed consideration of second-degree murder first and did not require contemporaneous consideration of sudden‑quarrel manslaughter.
Glass filed a pro se postconviction motion (2012), later amended, asserting: the jury instructions violated due process under this Court’s later decision in State v. Ronald Smith; and that trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for (a) not calling a character witness for the victim, (b) not retaining a ballistics/autopsy expert, and (c) failing to convey a plea offer.
After an evidentiary hearing the district court denied relief, finding Ronald Smith not retroactive on collateral review, the evidence supported the murder conviction, and counsel was not deficient or prejudicial.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: Ronald Smith announces a procedural (not substantive) rule and is not retroactive on collateral review; the step instruction did not deprive Glass of due process given sufficient evidence; and Glass’s ineffective‑assistance claims fail on performance and prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State v. Ronald Smith applies retroactively on collateral review to invalidate the trial jury instructions	Glass: Ronald Smith announced a new rule requiring simultaneous consideration of sudden‑quarrel manslaughter and thus must apply retroactively (substantive constitutional rule)	State: Ronald Smith clarified statutory/ procedural jury procedure, not a new substantive constitutional rule, so it is not retroactive to final convictions	Court: Ronald Smith announces a procedural rule, not a new substantive constitutional rule; it does not apply retroactively on collateral review
Whether the step jury instruction deprived Glass of due process by possibly preventing consideration of manslaughter	Glass: Step instruction could have caused unconstitutional conviction because manslaughter was not properly presented	State: The instruction did not relieve the State of proving murder elements; evidence supported conviction beyond reasonable doubt	Court: No due process violation; evidence sufficed for second‑degree murder and the instruction did not so infect trial as to violate due process
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness to testify to the victim’s violent character	Glass: Additional witness would have supported provocation/self‑defense and affected the outcome	State: Proposed testimony would be cumulative and not likely to change verdict	Court: No deficient performance or prejudice — testimony would have been cumulative; claim fails
Whether trial/appellate counsel were ineffective for failing to retain an expert or convey a plea offer	Glass: An expert could have undermined prosecution forensic evidence; counsel failed to relay a manslaughter plea offer	State: Trial counsel had no reason to doubt forensic conclusions; there is no evidence a plea offer was actually made; appellate counsel not ineffective for not raising meritless claims	Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; no showing of an actual plea offer; appellate claim fails because trial counsel was not ineffective

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ronald Smith, 282 Neb. 720 (clarified mens rea and held step instruction improper)
State v. Trice, 286 Neb. 183 (applied Ronald Smith on direct review)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (retroactivity framework for new rules on collateral review)
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (distinguishing substantive versus procedural rules; watershed exception)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (retroactivity principles for substantive rules)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (State must prove every element beyond reasonable doubt)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190 (clarified elements of second‑degree murder pre‑Ronald Smith)
State v. Mantich, 287 Neb. 320 (adopted Teague/Schriro test in Nebraska)
State v. Harrison, 293 Neb. 1000 (held Ronald Smith did not announce a new constitutional claim)
State v. Iromuanya, 282 Neb. 798 (step instruction did not violate due process under Nebraska precedent)