State v. Gonzales, 294 Neb. 627

Background

Victim Bonnie Baker was shot 16 times and died on December 15, 2013; bullets matched 9‑mm ammunition but the firearm was never recovered.
Gonzales attended a party at Bonnie’s trailer earlier that weekend, used methamphetamine there, and after an alleged sexual encounter with Elmer Baker was teased and threatened to “get a gun” and “light [the] place up.”
Witnesses described the shooter as a young, thin male in a baggy hoodie and saw the shooter flee to a tan four‑door Saturn and be driven away in the back seat.
Gonzales was arrested; he repeatedly denied involvement during multiple interviews, had some gunshot‑residue particles on his hands, had reportedly showered and changed clothes, and the clothes he wore that weekend were never recovered.
At trial Gonzales was convicted of first‑degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony; he appealed, arguing prosecutorial misconduct during closing, instructional error regarding sudden quarrel/malice, and insufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Gonzales)	Held
Whether prosecutor’s closing remarks (calling defendant’s denials a “story,” saying “once a lie, always a lie,” calling defense theory “make believe”) were misconduct requiring mistrial	Remarks were fair commentary and reasonable inferences from the evidence, not personal opinion	Remarks improperly vouched for credibility and amounted to prosecutorial misconduct; mistrial required	Court held remarks were commentary on the evidence (not personal belief), not misconduct; even if improper, not prejudicial given context and curative instruction, so no mistrial granted
Whether prosecutor’s characterization of defense theory as “science fiction”/“make believe” was improper	Characterization attacked merit of theory, fair in summation	Such epithets impermissibly inflame and denigrate defense theory	Court found such hyperbole permissible as summation; not prejudicial in context
Whether court erred in refusing a requested instruction that first‑degree murder must be found to be not upon a “sudden quarrel” (i.e., provocation negates malice)	Court’s instructions already defined sudden quarrel and properly required sequential consideration of offenses	Requested instruction specifically stating provocation negates malice was legally required and warranted by evidence	Court held requested instruction not warranted: evidence showed long cooling period, planning (left, obtained gun, returned), and victim was an innocent third party—no sudden quarrel manslaughter support
Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions	Evidence (threats to return with gun, eyewitness description matching Gonzales, gas/car matching Saturn, GSR on hands, unlocated clothes, circumstantial inconsistencies in alibi) sufficient for rational juror	Evidence circumstantial and weak; misidentification and contamination (GSR) plausible; reasonable doubt exists	Court held evidence sufficient viewing facts in prosecution’s favor; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cullen, 292 Neb. 30 (discusses standard for reviewing mistrial decisions)
State v. Casterline, 293 Neb. 41 (jury‑instruction review and appellant burden)
State v. McSwine, 292 Neb. 565 (prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice standard)
State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 (limits on prosecutor argument and inferences)
State v. Nolan, 292 Neb. 118 (context matters for assessing closing argument fairness)
State v. Lyle, 245 Neb. 354 (cooling‑off period and retrieving a weapon defeats sudden quarrel manslaughter)
State v. Freeman, 201 Neb. 382 (returning to procure a weapon precludes manslaughter instruction)
State v. Bautista, 193 Neb. 476 (killing innocent third party not mitigated by provocation aimed at another)
United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (prosecutor’s conduct limits and prejudicial effect)
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (due process analysis focuses on fairness of trial rather than prosecutor culpability)