State v. Huff
25 Neb. Ct. App. 219
Neb. Ct. App.2017Background
- Huff was tried for motor vehicle homicide and related offenses after a 2007 accident that killed Kasey Jo Warner; a jury convicted him of motor vehicle homicide and the court entered additional convictions and sentences. The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld most convictions on direct appeal but remanded and vacated one count.
- Huff filed a verified postconviction motion raising multiple claims including ineffective assistance of trial counsel and trial-court error based on in-chambers voir dire of several prospective jurors who had prior DUI convictions.
- At trial, the judge and counsel conducted in-chambers (private) voir dire of seven veniremembers who had indicated prior DUI convictions; Huff was not present for that 30+ minute questioning, though his counsel were present and told the court they had no objection to private questioning.
- After voir dire, the parties exercised peremptory strikes; two of the jurors questioned in chambers (Nos. 95 and 106) sat on the jury and juror No. 91 became the alternate; other questioned veniremembers were excused or struck.
- The district court denied portions of Huff’s postconviction motion without a hearing, granted others, and after appeals and a later evidentiary hearing denied the remaining claims. The court found Huff’s absence from in-chambers voir dire was inadvertent and that he failed to show prejudice from counsel’s not objecting.
- On appeal the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Huff waived to the extent he sought to raise trial-court error on that point and that he could not show a reasonable probability of prejudice under Strickland even assuming counsel’s performance was deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether allowing in-chambers voir dire outside defendant's presence violated constitutional rights | Huff: absence from private voir dire violated his right to be present, requiring relief | State: claim was procedurally barred in part; defendant had counsel present and had been present for substantial voir dire | Waived as trial-court error (not timely appealed earlier); alternatively, procedurally barred or not prejudicial |
| Whether trial counsel were ineffective for not objecting to defendant's absence from in-chambers voir dire | Huff: counsel should have objected or moved for mistrial; absence prevented him from observing demeanor and advising strikes | State: counsel were present, strategically accepted private questioning to avoid embarrassment; no showing that absence affected jury composition or verdict | Even assuming deficient performance, Huff failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome (no Strickland prejudice) |
| Whether prejudice should be presumed under Cronic because of lack of meaningful representation | Huff: surrounding circumstances justify presuming prejudice | State: none of Cronic’s narrow categories apply (no denial of counsel, no failure to test prosecution, no circumstances justifying presumption) | Cronic presumption not applicable; must show actual prejudice under Strickland |
| Whether intermittent absence from voir dire requires presumed prejudice or specific showing | Huff: absence from parts of voir dire was critical and prejudicial | State: courts analyze circumstances when absence was intermittent; presence for substantial voir dire and counsel present for private questioning negates presumption | No presumption; courts require specific showing of prejudice — Huff failed to make that showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (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 (right to be present tied to fairness of proceedings)
- Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730 (defendant's presence required when substantially related to ability to defend)
- State v. Huff, 282 Neb. 78 (Neb. 2011) (direct-appeal decision in same matter)
- State v. Ross, 296 Neb. 923 (Neb. 2017) (standards for postconviction review)
- State v. Determan, 292 Neb. 557 (Neb. 2016) (appealability of order denying an evidentiary hearing)
- State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 295 Neb. 1014 (Neb. 2017) (postconviction procedural bars)