State v. Hale, 858 N.W.2d 543

On Feb. 7, 2013, a fire at Raymond and Elizabeth Vasholz’s home killed Raymond; autopsy showed fatal carbon monoxide and smoke inhalation and second-degree burns. Fire investigator found multiple independent points of origin and opined arson.
Elizabeth, the surviving spouse, testified that Terrance J. Hale broke into the basement, assaulted her and Raymond, set objects on fire, and she escaped with severe burns; she identified Hale at the scene.
First responders and bystanders (officers Oseka and Andersen, paramedic Guidebeck, and a civilian) testified that Elizabeth, shortly after leaving the burning house, pointed at Hale and said variations of “He did it” or “That’s him,” and that she indicated a green coat belonged to the person in the police cruiser.
Physical evidence included blood consistent with Hale on the coat, Elizabeth’s blood on the coat, signs of a struggle in the home, and injuries and soot on Hale; Hale gave recorded statements asserting he tried to save the woman and was injured by police.
Hale was charged with first-degree murder under Nebraska’s felony‑murder statute (underlying felonies alleged: robbery, burglary, or arson), convicted by a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Hale)	Held
Admissibility of Elizabeth’s out‑of‑court ID statements under the excited‑utterance exception	Statements were made shortly after a startling event, related to the event, and uttered while declarant remained under stress; thus admissible as excited utterances	Elizabeth’s demeanor (calm, medicated, discrepancies in accounts, answers to questioning) showed capacity for reflection; statements were hearsay and should be excluded	Court admitted Oseka’s and Guidebeck’s testimony: under totality of circumstances Elizabeth remained under stress and her statements were excited utterances, so hearsay exception applied
Sufficiency of the evidence to support first‑degree (felony) murder conviction	Combined eyewitness testimony (Elizabeth) and circumstantial/physical evidence (arson investigator, coroner, Hale’s blood on coat, injuries, scene evidence) support that Hale intentionally set the fire and caused Raymond’s death during arson	Elizabeth’s credibility was undermined by inconsistent statements and possible confusion; State produced limited physical evidence and did not fully investigate another nearby man	Evidence was sufficient: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find Hale guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of killing Raymond in perpetration of arson

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (double jeopardy/goading intent framework)
State v. Castillo‑Zamora, 289 Neb. 382 (Neb. 2014) (standards for hearsay and appellate review)
State v. Matit, 288 Neb. 163 (Neb. 2014) (sufficiency of evidence standard)
State v. Lavalleur, 289 Neb. 102 (Neb. 2014) (excited‑utterance analysis)
State v. Ely, 287 Neb. 147 (Neb. 2014) (felony‑murder principles)
State v. Ruyle, 234 Neb. 760 (Neb. 1990) (arson and related homicide guidance)
Werner v. County of Platte, 284 Neb. 899 (Neb. 2012) (factors relevant to excited utterance reliability)
State v. Smith, 286 Neb. 856 (Neb. 2013) (hearsay/excited utterance jurisprudence)
State v. Bol, 288 Neb. 144 (Neb. 2014) (related felony‑murder precedent)