State v. Huston, 291 Neb. 708

Background

Dallas L. Huston was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 50 years to life; this court affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Huston (Huston I).
At trial the State admitted several video-recorded police interviews (exhibits 38, 81, 95) containing statements about a one-time sexual encounter with a friend (Wilson), police speculation that Huston might be a serial killer, and officers' opinions that the death was murder rather than assisted suicide.
Huston had filed a pretrial motion to redact portions of those interview recordings; the court ordered some redactions but denied others. Trial counsel did not object when the unredacted exhibits were offered, responding "no further objection."
On direct appeal Huston argued the recordings were prejudicial; the court declined to resolve the ineffective-assistance claim because the trial record did not show whether counsel’s failure to object was strategic.
Huston then filed a pro se postconviction motion asserting multiple ineffective-assistance claims (trial and appellate counsel), including failure to object to exhibits 38, 81, and 95. The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; Huston appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held an evidentiary hearing was required only as to the claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to exhibits 38, 81, and 95, and otherwise affirmed the denial of postconviction relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Huston)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Huston’s postconviction ineffective-assistance claims	Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to admission of exhibits 38, 81, 95 (unredacted interview statements); prejudice because issues would have been preserved for appeal or changed outcome	Many claims were conclusory or refuted by the record; no hearing needed except where record remained insufficient to decide strategy for failure-to-object	Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing solely on claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to exhibits 38, 81, 95; all other claims affirmed (no hearing)
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise preserved-evidence issues on direct appeal	Appellate counsel failed to preserve/raise key admissibility challenges	Appellate counsel did raise trial-counsel ineffectiveness regarding exhibits; layered-ineffectiveness analysis depends on trial counsel performance	Not implicated for the exhibit-38/81/95 claim because appellate counsel did raise the issue on direct appeal; postconviction remand focuses on trial counsel strategy
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to recordings of conversations with informants (Berghuis/Wilson)	Counsel should have objected because informant misrepresentations made recordings unreliable/prejudicial	Record shows officers instructed informants about limits; claim refuted by record, so no hearing required	Affirmed — no evidentiary hearing; records and files refute the allegation
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach witness Berghuis or to challenge sufficiency of evidence	Counsel failed to impeach conflicting statements of Berghuis and failed to press insufficiency of evidence	Record shows counsel cross-examined Berghuis and moved for dismissal / renewed insufficiency motion; counsel also argued lack of physical evidence in closing	Affirmed — claims refuted by record; no hearing required

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Huston, 285 Neb. 11 (direct appeal; court declined to resolve trial-counsel strategy issue regarding failure to object to interview exhibits)
State v. Seberger, 284 Neb. 40 (postconviction remand required when record insufficient to evaluate trial counsel performance)
State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 (standard for when a postconviction evidentiary hearing is required)
State v. Sellers, 290 Neb. 18 (pro se litigant held to same standards; discussion of appellate ineffectiveness and layered claims)