State v. Huff
25 Neb. Ct. App. 219
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Huff was convicted of motor vehicle homicide and related offenses; after direct appeals the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed most convictions and remanded/resolved sentencing issues.
- Huff filed a verified postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial and trial-court errors; the district court granted an evidentiary hearing on some claims and dismissed others; intermediate appeals followed.
- At trial voir dire, several prospective jurors disclosed prior DUI convictions; the court and counsel conducted individual in-chambers questioning of eight prospective jurors without Huff present; Huff’s attorneys were present and did not object on the record to Huff’s absence.
- At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified the in-chambers questioning was intended to avoid embarrassing jurors and that they did not request Huff’s presence; Huff testified he would have wanted to be present and could have provided input based on demeanor and answers.
- The district court found Huff’s absence during the in-chambers voir dire was inadvertent, rejected his claim of trial-court error as procedurally barred, and rejected his ineffective-assistance claim for lack of prejudice; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Huff) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire in chambers outside Huff's presence violated his constitutional right to be present | Absence violated Confrontation/Due Process and jury-selection rights; he should not have been excluded | Claim was waived/procedurally barred and, in any event, his absence did not prejudice him | Procedurally barred as trial-court-error claim (not raised timely); otherwise no reversible error shown |
| Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object or move for mistrial over Huff's absence | Counsel’s failure deprived Huff of input and undermines fairness; presence could have affected jury composition | Counsel made tactical decisions; presence was not necessary and no prejudice shown | No ineffective assistance: even if deficient, Huff failed to prove prejudice under Strickland |
| Whether prejudice should be presumed under Cronic because of counsel’s conduct | Huff argues circumstances warrant presumed prejudice | State: Cronic circumstances not met (not a complete denial of counsel or wholesale failure to test prosecution) | Court: Cronic does not apply; no presumption of prejudice |
| Whether postconviction procedural bars apply to claims that could have been raised on direct appeal | Huff contends later review is appropriate in postconviction proceedings | State says claims known at trial and litigable on direct appeal are barred | Court: Claims of trial-court error were procedurally barred from postconviction review; ineffective-assistance claims preserved were analyzed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (circumstances in which prejudice may be presumed)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (defendant’s presence at trial stages tied to fairness of proceedings)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (due process presence right in jury selection/voir dire context)
- State v. Ross, 296 Neb. 923 (standards for postconviction review)
- State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 295 Neb. 1014 (postconviction limits; issues known at trial must be raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Fox, 282 Neb. 957 (defendant’s right to be present at trial stages)