State v. Huff
25 Neb. Ct. App. 219
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2007 Huff struck and killed Kasey Jo Warner; he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was later convicted by jury of motor vehicle homicide and other charges; sentences were imposed and partly affirmed on direct appeal.
- Huff filed a verified postconviction motion (2012) alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, trial-court error, prosecutorial and law enforcement misconduct, and sought an evidentiary hearing; parts were dismissed and parts were preserved for hearing after appeals.
- At trial voir dire (March 9, 2010) the judge and counsel identified seven prospective jurors with prior DUI convictions and conducted individual in-chambers questioning without Huff physically present; Huff’s counsel were present and did not object on the record.
- After in-chambers questioning one juror was excused for cause; two of the in-chambers-questioned jurors (Nos. 95 and 106) served on the jury; juror No. 91 became the alternate; juror No. 102 was later removed by peremptory strike.
- On postconviction evidentiary hearing, Huff testified he would have participated if present and believed his absence hampered jury-selection input; trial counsel testified the in-chambers procedure was intended to avoid embarrassing jurors and they made a tactical decision not to object.
- The district court denied relief, finding Huff waived or failed to timely appeal any claim of trial-court error as to in-chambers voir dire and that Huff could not show prejudice from counsel’s failure to object; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Huff's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial-court error occurred in conducting in-chambers voir dire outside defendant’s presence | In-chambers voir dire without Huff violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to be present | Claim was procedurally barred (dismissed earlier) and in any event no prejudice shown | Waived/procedurally barred; claim not before court and denied on merits if considered |
| Whether trial counsel were ineffective for not objecting to Huff’s absence during in-chambers voir dire | Counsel’s failure to object or move for mistrial deprived Huff of meaningful participation in jury selection | Counsel made tactical decision; Huff was present for most voir dire and for peremptory exercise; no reasonable probability of different outcome | Counsel not shown to have caused prejudice under Strickland; postconviction relief denied |
| Whether prejudice should be presumed (Cronic) | Huff argued surrounding circumstances warranted presumed prejudice | Cronic inapplicable; no complete denial of counsel, no failure to test prosecution, nor extraordinary circumstances | Presumed prejudice not warranted; actual prejudice required and not shown |
| Whether intermittent absence from voir dire requires presumed prejudice or specific showing | Huff urged strong protection for presence at jury selection | Courts analyze circumstances when absence is intermittent and require specific prejudice showing | No presumption; must show reasonable probability outcome would differ; Huff failed to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (circumstances where prejudice may be presumed in ineffective-assistance claims)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (1987) (defendant’s presence required when reasonably substantial to opportunity to defend)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934) (due process right to presence not absolute; required when absence thwarts fairness)
- State v. Ross, 296 Neb. 923 (2017) (standards for reviewing postconviction claims and ineffective-assistance claims)
- State v. Determan, 292 Neb. 557 (2016) (order denying evidentiary hearing on some claims is final and appealable)