State v. Huff
25 Neb. Ct. App. 219
Neb. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2007 Huff struck and killed Kasey Jo Warner; at trial a jury convicted him of motor vehicle homicide and the court convicted him of related charges. He received lengthy prison terms; portions were affirmed on direct appeal and one conviction vacated/remanded.
- Huff filed a verified postconviction motion in 2012 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, trial-court error, prosecutorial and law-enforcement misconduct; the court granted an evidentiary hearing on some claims and dismissed others. Portions dismissed were affirmed on appeal.
- At jury selection (voir dire) several venirepersons disclosed prior DUI convictions. The court and counsel conducted private, in-chambers questioning of eight prospective jurors; the bill of exceptions shows Huff was absent during those chambers interviews though his attorneys and the court reporter were present.
- One juror (No. 73) was excused for cause in chambers; six others said they could be impartial; two of the in-chambers-questioned jurors (Nos. 95 and 106) served on the jury and No. 91 was alternate. Some of the questioned jurors were later struck via peremptory challenges.
- Huff claimed on postconviction that (1) the court’s in-chambers voir dire outside his presence violated his constitutional rights and (2) his trial counsel were ineffective for not objecting or seeking a mistrial. The district court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Huff's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court violated constitutional right by conducting in-chambers voir dire outside defendant's presence | Absence from in-chambers questioning violated his right to be present at all critical stages and was not knowingly waived | Claim was waived/previously dismissed as non-ineffective-assistance error and, in any event, any omission was not prejudicial because questioning was limited and defendant was present for the bulk of voir dire | Waived as separate trial-court-error claim; even on merits claim would be procedurally barred and not shown to be prejudicial |
| Whether trial counsel were ineffective for failing to object to defendant's absence during in-chambers voir dire | Counsel deficient for not objecting/insisting on defendant's presence; that deficiency prejudiced outcome because several in-chambers jurors were later struck and two served on jury | Counsel made reasonable tactical choices; defendant cannot show a reasonable probability of a different result even if counsel deficient | No ineffective-assistance relief: either counsel not shown deficient and, in any event, no Strickland prejudice established |
| Whether prejudice is presumed under Cronic or similar doctrines so defendant need not show actual prejudice | Presence of surrounding circumstances (absence during voir dire) warrants presumption of prejudice | Cronic presumption inapplicable; the circumstances do not meet the narrow categories for presumed prejudice | Cronic presumption not applicable; defendant must show actual prejudice and failed to do so |
| Whether absence during voir dire required reversal because defendant could have supplied meaningful input on strikes | Huff would have observed demeanor and could have influenced peremptory choices to obtain a fairer jury | Defendant had opportunity to consult, was present for main voir dire, and had counsel present in chambers who later conferred with him; no biased juror was shown to have served | No showing that defendant’s absence affected fairness; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Cronic v. United States, 466 U.S. 648 (circumstances where prejudice may be presumed)
- Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (defendant’s presence required when absence would thwart fairness; discussion of defendant’s right to be present at juror examination)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (right to be present tied to opportunity to defend; due process limits)
- U.S. v. Tipton, 90 F.3d 861 (4th Cir.) (intermittent absence from voir dire requires specific prejudice showing)
- State v. Ross, 296 Neb. 923 (Nebraska standard for Strickland and postconviction review)
- State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 295 Neb. 1014 (standards on postconviction evidentiary hearings and procedural bars)