State v. Hinrichsen
292 Neb. 611
| Neb. | 2016Background
- In December 2012 Matthew Hinrichsen killed Victoria Lee and Gabino Vargas, admitted the killings but claimed lack of intent and intoxication; he also set the victims’ residence on fire and attempted suicide.
- Police found weapons, bloody clothing, and audio/video evidence (including a 911 call with Hinrichsen audible) tying him to the scene.
- Hinrichsen was tried, convicted by a jury of two counts of first‑degree murder, use/possession of a firearm in a felony, and sentenced to life plus lengthy consecutive terms.
- Pretrial, Hinrichsen sought an intoxication instruction; the trial court denied it based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑122 (intoxication not a defense). He did not renew a jury instruction at trial.
- The court used an "acquittal‑first" step instruction (first‑degree → second‑degree → manslaughter). The jury was instructed on deliberate, premeditation, malice, and sudden quarrel (defined).
- On appeal Hinrichsen challenged (inter alia) the failure to instruct that the State must disprove sudden‑quarrel provocation for first‑degree murder, the definitions of sudden quarrel and premeditation, denial of an intoxication instruction, and admission of a wedding photo.
Issues
| Issue | Hinrichsen's Argument | State's/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process required an explicit instruction that the State must prove absence of sudden‑quarrel provocation to obtain a first‑degree murder conviction | Instruction was required because sudden quarrel negates malice and thus an explicit burden‑of‑proof instruction was necessary (avoiding impermissible burden‑shifting) | The statutory elements for first‑degree murder (purposely with deliberate and premeditated malice) were properly instructed; when jury finds those elements beyond a reasonable doubt it necessarily rejects sudden quarrel — no additional explicit sentence required | Affirmed: no due process violation; proving deliberate/premeditated malice necessarily disproves sudden quarrel so burden remained on State |
| Whether the trial court misdefined "sudden quarrel" or should have added that provocation negates malice | Proposed clarification that provocation negates malice was necessary | Given definitions of deliberate, premeditation, and malice as instructed, jury could and did consider provocation; explicit addition not required (but suggested as better practice) | Held: no reversible error; court encouraged clearer future wording |
| Whether pretrial denial and trial court’s failure to give an intoxication instruction violated rights | Intoxication instruction should have been given; § 29‑122 unconstitutional as shifting burden | § 29‑122 valid; defendant failed to preserve instruction at trial (no renewed request) | Held: issue not preserved for appeal; reviewed for plain error and none found |
| Whether admission of wedding photograph was erroneous/prejudicial | Photo was irrelevant and prejudicial | State introduced photo for identification (bodies burned beyond recognition) and to show victims; any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence | Held: admissibility within trial court discretion; any error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975) (Due Process requires prosecution to prove absence of heat of passion on sudden provocation when issue is properly presented)
- Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977) (States need only require prosecution to prove statutory elements; affirmative defenses that do not negate elements may be placed on defendant)
- Smith v. U.S., 133 S. Ct. 714 (2013) (Clarifies that prosecution cannot shift burden where an affirmative defense negates an element of the crime)
- Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1 (1994) (Jury instructions must be considered as a whole; no specific words required so long as reasonable doubt concept conveyed)
- State v. Smith, 284 Neb. 636 (Neb. 2012) (Nebraska requires a jury be given the option between second‑degree murder and voluntary manslaughter when provocation evidence could lead to manslaughter)
- State v. Trice, 286 Neb. 183 (Neb. 2013) (Applied Smith retroactively; step instruction that prevents jury from considering sudden quarrel is erroneous when evidence supports provocation)