State v. Grant
293 Neb. 163
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Victim Trudy McKee was found stabbed over 50 times in her Omaha apartment on Sept. 17, 2013; no forced entry and the apartment door was apparently locked from the outside after the killing.
- Defendant Robert W. Grant lived intermittently in the apartment in the weeks before the killing; a bloodied maroon tank top, black pants, Adidas shoes, and a black-and-yellow duffelbag were recovered and linked to Grant by DNA and other testimony.
- Grant was stopped at an Omaha bus station the evening of Sept. 17 attempting to board a bus without a ticket, gave false names, and was arrested; a drop of the victim’s blood was later found on his shoe.
- Police obtained various statements from Grant at the scene, at the correctional center, and at police headquarters; some pre-Miranda statements about whereabouts were excluded by the district court.
- Trial evidence included autopsy photos, DNA matches on clothing/shoes, testimony about the duffelbag’s ownership, witness reactions, and behavior of Grant during arrest and trial; jury convicted Grant of first-degree murder and felony use of a deadly weapon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of pre-arrest and booking statements (Miranda/Jackson) | Statements were biographical/booking and not interrogation; district court properly excluded only incriminating pre-Miranda answers | Statements were custodial and interrogation-derived, violating Miranda and Jackson; should be suppressed | Court: Grant was in custody but questions were routine booking/biographical so admissible; some specific pre-Miranda incriminating statements properly excluded by trial court |
| Admission that duffelbag belonged to Grant and Adler’s report of Carter’s out‑of‑court utterance (hearsay) | Testimony was admissible or harmless because other evidence (Carter, DNA) established ownership and guilt | Testimony was hearsay and prejudicial | Court: Even if hearsay/admissible error, admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given cumulative evidence |
| Shoeprint comparison testimony by crime lab technician (expert/foundation) | Comparison was lay-observable, not expert; admission appropriate and defendant failed to preserve Daubert challenge | Testimony required expert foundation; technician unqualified | Court: Testimony was lay comparison and any Daubert-style objection was waived for lack of specific foundation at trial |
| Admission of clothing (chain of custody) | Chain of custody and witness identification sufficient to authenticate exhibits | Foundation missing because packaging provenance not shown | Court: Sufficient chain and authentication; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Motions for mistrial after defendant’s courtroom outbursts | No mistrial necessary; defendant’s conduct caused incident and jurors indicated impartiality | Incidents prejudiced jury; mistrial or new evaluation required | Court: Denial proper; a defendant cannot benefit from his own disruptive conduct and prejudice was not shown |
| Request for new competency evaluation mid-trial | Pretrial evaluation found competency; post‑outburst affidavit insufficient to show incompetency | Recent behavior and counsel affidavit raised bona fide doubt about competency | Court: Denial proper; pretrial evaluation and record supported competency finding |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | DNA, possession links, no forced entry, victim’s wounds and context support convictions | Missing tests and lost hairs create reasonable doubt | Court: Evidence, viewed favorably to the State, was sufficient to support convictions for first-degree murder and weapon use |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (courts must assess voluntariness of confessions before admitting them)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires procedural safeguards before admissibility)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Schafersman v. Agland Coop., 262 Neb. 215 (2001) (Nebraska adoption/application of Daubert principles)
- State v. Cook, 244 Neb. 751 (1993) (instructional language for manslaughter consistent with statute)
- State v. Blackwell, 184 Neb. 121 (1969) (defendant’s disruptive conduct at trial does not warrant mistrial when resulting prejudice is not shown)