State v. Huff
905 N.W.2d 59
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jeffrey A. Huff was convicted by a jury of first degree sexual assault; trial began Aug 10, 2015, with a 12-person jury and one alternate sworn.
- Juror M.F. raised concerns about his fitness for service the morning after being sworn, citing a troubled background; initially agreed he could be fair but expressed anxiety.
- The trial court denied the State’s initial motion to remove M.F. for cause after voir dire but indicated it would monitor the issue.
- During trial the State introduced M.F.’s juror questionnaire transcript and a criminal-history printout showing numerous convictions (including assaults) that M.F. had not disclosed; the State renewed its motion to remove him.
- The court discharged M.F. (terminology: described as striking for cause but functionally a discharge) and replaced him with the alternate over Huff’s objection; Huff moved for a mistrial, which was denied.
- Huff was sentenced to 12–20 years’ imprisonment; he appealed alleging (1) erroneous removal of M.F., (2) erroneous denial of mistrial, and (3) excessive sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal of juror after jury sworn | State argued M.F. should be discharged due to undisclosed criminal history and apparent disinterest | Huff argued removal was improper and State waived objection by not challenging for cause earlier; court failed to question M.F. before discharge | Court held discharge was discretionary and not an abuse; M.F. was discharged (not stricken for cause) and replacement under §29-2004 was proper |
| Duty to question juror before discharge | State relied on facts in record and transcript instead of new colloquy | Huff relied on Myers to argue court must examine juror if grounds arise after swearing | Court held Myers inapplicable because removal was a discharge (not a challenge for cause) and no statutory duty to re-question arose; no error in not re-questioning |
| Motion for mistrial based on juror removal | State argued removal was proper so mistrial unwarranted | Huff argued improper removal tainted trial and required mistrial | Court denied mistrial; no abuse of discretion because removal was proper |
| Excessive sentence | State urged sentence within statutory range and appropriately considered factors | Huff argued court failed to meaningfully consider mitigation (family, rehab, employment) | Court affirmed 12–20 years as within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hilding, 278 Neb. 115, 769 N.W.2d 326 (Neb. 2009) (retention/removal of juror after trial commencement is discretionary)
- State v. Krutilek, 254 Neb. 11, 573 N.W.2d 771 (Neb. 1998) (standard of review for juror dismissal is abuse of discretion)
- State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163, 876 N.W.2d 639 (Neb. 2016) (motions for mistrial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88, 871 N.W.2d 243 (Neb. 2015) (sentence within statutory limits will not be disturbed absent abuse of discretion)
- State v. Dixon, 282 Neb. 274, 802 N.W.2d 866 (Neb. 2011) (statutory grounds for challenges for cause)
- State v. Myers, 190 Neb. 466, 209 N.W.2d 345 (Neb. 1973) (when grounds for challenge arise after jury sworn, court should hear evidence and examine jurors)