State v. Hernandez
299 Neb. 896
Neb.2018Background
- Desiderio "Desi" Hernandez was charged with first-degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in connection with the shooting death of his cousin Joseph Debella.
- Witnesses testified Hernandez was seen after the shooting saying he shot Debella; relatives and acquaintances also testified Hernandez made admissions about the shooting; Hernandez fled and resisted arrest (Taser deployed). He was arrested after an hours-long standoff.
- Hernandez was video-recorded in a ~2-hour custodial interview ~11½ hours after arrest; during the interview he made varied statements including an express confession (“Yes, I did” to shooting) as well as many odd, tangential, and self-contradictory remarks; at the interview’s end he asked to stop talking.
- Hernandez moved to suppress the interview on grounds his statements were involuntary (residual methamphetamine influence/mental state), his Miranda rights were not validly waived, and he invoked his right to remain silent mid-interview; he also moved in limine to redact portions of the interview.
- The district court denied suppression, admitted most of the interview (excluding certain prior-act and highly prejudicial statements), and overruled a mistrial motion based on several improper prosecutorial closing remarks; a jury convicted Hernandez on all counts and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Hernandez's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of confession | Confession involuntary because Hernandez was under influence of methamphetamine and/or not in sound mind | No police coercion; interviewers calm, rapport-based, no exploitation; Hernandez coherent and responsive | Confession voluntary—no coercive police conduct; intoxication/odd statements alone insufficient to show involuntariness |
| Validity of Miranda waiver | Could not knowingly/voluntarily waive Miranda due to intoxication/mental state | Hernandez understood rights (stated awareness: “anything I say can incriminate me”), orally and impliedly waived by speaking and agreeing to sign | Waiver knowing and voluntary (oral and implied); admission of interview proper |
| Invocation of right to remain silent | Mid-interview remark “I think I’ll probably stop talking now” was an invocation | That language was equivocal and not an unequivocal invocation; he later clearly and properly invoked at the end and it was honored | Mid-interview remark not a clear, unambiguous invocation; only the later explicit request ended questioning |
| Admission/redaction under Neb. Evid. R. 401–403 | Many tangential/family/character statements should have been redacted as irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial | Statements were relevant to voluntariness/context; trial court excluded the most prejudicial parts and reasonably admitted others | No abuse of discretion: district court properly balanced probative value (voluntariness/context) against prejudice and redacted highly prejudicial material |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Prosecutor made improper personal-opinion and inflammatory remarks that warranted mistrial | Some remarks were permissible argument; though several comments were improper, the trial as a whole was not rendered unfair given strength of evidence | Several closing statements constituted misconduct (improper personal opinion and inflammatory appeals) but misconduct was not prejudicial given overwhelming evidence; mistrial not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (voluntariness analysis requires state coercive conduct; mental illness or intoxication alone does not make a confession involuntary absent police overreaching)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires warning of right to remain silent and counsel; waiver must be knowing and voluntary)
- Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (U.S. 2010) (silence during interrogation does not automatically invoke Miranda rights; invocation must be unambiguous)
- North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369 (U.S. 1979) (an express written or oral waiver is not required; waiver may be implied from course of conduct)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (Miranda waiver must be knowing and voluntary under totality of circumstances)
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1964) (procedural safeguards and judicial inquiry required before admitting confession)
- Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (U.S. 2000) (Miranda is a constitutional decision affirming requirement of warnings for custodial interrogation)