State v. Harris
292 Neb. 186
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Jack E. Harris was convicted in 1999 of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Harris filed multiple postconviction actions over years; in 2008 he filed a second postconviction motion along with a motion for new trial and a motion for writ of error coram nobis, all alleging newly discovered evidence that another man (Hicks) committed the killing.
- Supporting affidavits from two witnesses (McClinton and Allgood) claimed Hicks confessed and was near the scene; Harris alleged he learned this only in 2006 and that the State/prosecutor had concealed information.
- The district court granted an evidentiary hearing on the postconviction motion but later dismissed the postconviction motion without prejudice under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3003 because the new-trial and coram nobis motions were pending simultaneously.
- Harris appealed, arguing (1) § 29-3003 requires dismissal only when the allegations would provide grounds for the other remedy, not merely because other motions are pending, and (2) the dismissal was a final, appealable order.
Issues
| Issue | Harris' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 29-3003 required dismissal of the postconviction motion because new-trial and coram nobis motions were pending | § 29-3003 should not bar postconviction relief here because the other remedies are mutually exclusive or in any event Harris should be allowed to pursue postconviction relief unless the other remedies, on their face, provide grounds for relief | § 29-3003 mandates dismissal of the postconviction motion when other remedies are available and pending | Court reversed: § 29-3003 requires dismissal only if the allegations would constitute grounds for relief under the concurrently-filed remedy; here the concurrently-filed new-trial and coram nobis motions showed no possibility of relief, so postconviction motion should be considered on the merits |
| Whether the new-trial motion could provide relief (statute of limitations) | The new-trial motion raises newly discovered evidence and should be considered | The new-trial motion is time-barred under applicable statutes | Held: the new-trial motion was barred by the statute(s) of limitations and provided no basis to dismiss the postconviction motion |
| Whether the writ of error coram nobis could provide relief | The affidavits alleging the State's key witness testified falsely would support coram nobis | Coram nobis is limited to certain unknown, nondiscoverable facts that would have prevented judgment; it cannot be used to challenge a witness’s alleged false testimony in this way | Held: coram nobis would not provide relief here because it cannot be invoked merely to assert that an important witness testified falsely; therefore it did not bar postconviction relief |
| Whether the district court's dismissal was a final, appealable order | Dismissal under § 29-3003 affected substantive rights and was appealable | The court did not enter a final judgment as to all claims, so it might not be appealable | Held: the dismissal affected a substantial right in a special proceeding and was final and appealable under § 25-1902 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 (discussing procedural-bar questions in postconviction review)
- State v. Turner, 194 Neb. 252 (defining cumulative remedy and that it may not be pursued simultaneously with preexisting remedy)
- State v. Sandoval, 288 Neb. 754 (explaining purpose and scope of writ of error coram nobis)
- State v. Hessler, 288 Neb. 670 (burden of proof and standard for coram nobis relief)
- State v. Lotter, 266 Neb. 245 (coram nobis cannot be used to challenge allegedly false testimony of an important witness)
- State v. Jackson, 291 Neb. 908 (definition of final, appealable orders and substantial-rights analysis)
- State v. Silvers, 255 Neb. 702 (postconviction actions characterized as special proceedings)