State v. Jenkins
294 Neb. 684
| Neb. | 2016Background
- On Aug. 11, 2013 two men were found shot to death; wallets missing. Investigation linked Christine Bordeaux (witness) and led to arrests of Nikko Jenkins (charged/convicted of murder) and Erica A. Jenkins (defendant here).
- Erica disclosed her cell number; police obtained historical cell-site location information (CSLI) and subscriber records from her carrier under 18 U.S.C. § 2703(d) (no content was obtained). Records showed calls routed near the victims’ apartment and later near the crime scene and in Council Bluffs after the incident.
- Erica moved to suppress the CSLI as a Fourth Amendment search lacking probable cause; district court denied suppression. A second § 2703(d) order with a fuller affidavit was subsequently obtained.
- At trial the State admitted three distant crime‑scene photographs; Bordeaux and other witnesses testified; Jenkins was convicted of two counts of robbery and later adjudicated a habitual criminal and sentenced to consecutive 30–50 year terms.
- Jenkins appealed, arguing (inter alia) CSLI suppression error, admission of gruesome photos, insufficiency of evidence, Brady violation (motion for new trial), and improper habitual‑criminal enhancement. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jenkins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether acquisition of historical CSLI from carrier was a Fourth Amendment search | No search: CSLI are business records held by third party; third‑party doctrine applies | CSLI reveal location and movements; expectation of privacy exists—Riley/Jones principles should control; first warrant lacked probable cause | Held: No reasonable expectation of privacy in historical CSLI; acquisition under §2703(d) is not a Fourth Amendment search; suppression properly denied |
| Admissibility of crime‑scene photographs | Photos corroborate witness testimony and show victims’ positions; probative value outweighs prejudice | Photos were gruesome and cumulative under Neb. Evid. R. 403 | Held: No abuse of discretion; three distant photos were probative, not needlessly cumulative or unfairly prejudicial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery convictions | CSLI + witness testimony corroborate timeline and aiding/abetting instruction suffices | Witnesses unreliable; lack of fingerprints/DNA links Jenkins to crime | Held: Evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution; convictions affirmed |
| Motion for new trial (Brady claim re: tacit agreement with defense witness Sayles) | No undisclosed agreement; State did not promise leniency | Sayles’ bond reduction and circumstances show a tacit deal that should have been disclosed | Held: No Brady violation proven; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial |
| Habitual‑criminal enhancement applicability | Prior convictions properly proved; sequence requirement satisfied | Second prior committed while on parole should not count toward habitual enhancement | Held: Sequence satisfied (each successive felony committed after prior conviction); enhancement proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Knutson, 288 Neb. 823 (Neb. 2014) (held no reasonable expectation of privacy in carrier business records of phone use)
- Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (U.S. 1979) (third‑party doctrine: no Fourth Amendment protection for numbers voluntarily conveyed to phone company)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (U.S. 2014) (warrant generally required to search digital contents of cell phones seized incident to arrest)
- United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (U.S. 2012) (installation and long‑term use of GPS device on vehicle is a Fourth Amendment search)