State v. Huff
905 N.W.2d 59
Neb.2017Background
- Defendant Jeffrey A. Huff was tried on first‑degree sexual assault; jury selection occurred Aug. 10–11, 2015; 12 jurors + one alternate were sworn.
- After being sworn, juror M.F. told the court he felt unsuitable for service because of a difficult upbringing but later agreed he could follow the law and be impartial.
- The district court initially denied the State’s oral motion to remove M.F. for cause, deciding to monitor him during trial.
- After both parties rested, the court observed M.F. appeared inattentive (no note‑taking) and the State introduced M.F.’s criminal record showing numerous misdemeanor convictions that M.F. had not disclosed on his juror questionnaire.
- The court discharged M.F. (replacing him with the alternate) without directly re‑examining him about the questionnaire omissions; Huff objected and moved for mistrial, which was denied.
- Huff was convicted and sentenced; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review limited to the juror removal and mistrial issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror M.F. could be discharged after being sworn | State: M.F. should be discharged because he concealed criminal history and was inattentive | Huff: State waived challenge by not raising it before jurors were sworn; no new basis arose after swearing | Court: Discharge under §29‑2004(2) proper; no abuse of discretion (discharge supported by totality: self‑reported unsuitability, inattentiveness, nondisclosure) |
| Whether failure to challenge during voir dire waived objection | State: Waiver not dispositive because court raised concerns and discharge occurred before submission | Huff: By passing jurors for cause, State waived rights to challenge afterwards | Court: Waiver analysis unnecessary here because the court itself raised the issue and discharged before final submission; discretion to discharge remained |
| Whether court was required to question M.F. before discharge | Huff: Court should have questioned M.F. about nondisclosure to determine motive and bias | State/Court: Court held hearing and received evidence; questioning would be best practice but not always required | Court: Although direct questioning is preferable, it was not required here because court relied on multiple factors (observations, record, questionnaire) and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether denial of mistrial was proper | Huff: Discharge prejudiced his right to impartial jury; warranted mistrial | State: No prejudice; alternate juror replaced M.F.; discharge was lawful | Court: Denial proper because discharge was not an abuse of discretion, so mistrial not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hilding, 278 Neb. 115 (discretion governs juror retention/removal)
- State v. Myers, 190 Neb. 466 (duty to examine jurors when grounds for challenge arise after swearing)
- State v. Harris, 264 Neb. 856 (no waiver where juror concealed disqualifying conviction; motive matters)
- McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (juror dishonesty in voir dire analyzed for bias)
- Turley v. State, 74 Neb. 471 (voir dire diligence: failures to investigate can operate as waiver)
- State v. Robinson, 272 Neb. 582 (juror removed for sleeping/inattention upheld)