State v. Huff
25 Neb. Ct. App. 219
Neb. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2010 Huff was tried and convicted of motor vehicle homicide and related offenses; he later filed a postconviction motion raising ineffective-assistance, trial-court error, and other claims.
- Voir dire: during jury selection seven prospective jurors disclosed prior DUI convictions; the judge and counsel questioned eight jurors individually in chambers without Huff physically present; Huff’s trial counsel were present and did not object on the record.
- Huff claimed at postconviction that his absence from the in‑chambers voir dire violated his constitutional right to be present and that his trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object or move for a mistrial.
- The district court dismissed some claims earlier; after several appeals and rulings, an evidentiary hearing was held in 2016 on remaining claims (including the in‑chambers voir dire issue), with testimony from both trial attorneys and Huff.
- The district court found Huff’s absence inadvertent, trial counsel’s conduct not shown to have prejudiced the defense, and denied postconviction relief; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether voir dire conducted in chambers without defendant present violated his constitutional right to be present | Huff: absence from in‑chambers questioning denied his right to observe jurors, give input, and thus violated Confrontation/Due Process rights | State: claim was waived/procedurally barred and, on merits, absence was intermittent and not presumptively prejudicial | Waived to extent it was asserted as trial‑court error; alternatively, procedurally barred or, on the merits, no reversible violation shown |
| Whether trial counsel were ineffective for not objecting to defendant’s absence during in‑chambers voir dire | Huff: counsel’s failure to object or demand his presence was deficient and prejudiced him because several challenged jurors were questioned in his absence | State: counsel made tactical decisions, were present during questioning, defendant was present for main voir dire and jury selection, and Huff cannot show reasonable probability of different outcome | No ineffective assistance: even assuming deficiency, Huff failed to show Strickland prejudice |
| Whether prejudice from absence should be presumed under Cronic | Huff: surrounding circumstances justify presuming prejudice | State: Cronic does not apply; no complete denial of counsel or failure of adversarial testing | Cronic inapplicable; no presumption of prejudice established |
| Whether defendant is entitled to postconviction relief based on these claims | Huff: relief warranted due to constitutional and counsel errors | State: claims either waived, procedurally barred, or not meeting Strickland standard | Postconviction relief denied and conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (defendant’s presence required only when absence would frustrate fairness of proceedings)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (discussing defendant’s due process right to be present during voir dire)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (circumstances in which prejudice from counsel’s assistance may be presumed)
- State v. Ross, 296 Neb. 923 (standards for postconviction review and Strickland application in Nebraska)
- State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 295 Neb. 1014 (postconviction procedural bars and evidentiary hearing standards)