State v. Jenkins, 303 Neb. 676

Background

In August 2013 Nikko A. Jenkins killed four people; he was charged in two cases later consolidated and entered pleas of not guilty at arraignment.
Competency was contested throughout: multiple experts disagreed (diagnoses ranged from schizophrenia/schizoaffective to antisocial/narcissistic personality disorder and malingering). The court held repeated competency hearings.
In Feb. 2014 the court found Jenkins competent to stand trial; in March 2014 he waived counsel and jury and later (April 2014) entered no contest pleas to all counts. The court accepted the State’s factual basis and convicted him.
The court temporarily found Jenkins incompetent for sentencing in July 2014, ordered treatment/evaluation, later found him competent (Mar./Sept. 2015/2016), and proceeded to a capital sentencing hearing in Nov. 2016.
A three-judge panel found six aggravators, considered mitigation (including mental-health evidence and solitary confinement), and imposed death sentences on four first-degree murder counts; this automatic appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jenkins)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Competency to plead/no contest	Jenkins lacked capacity to enter pleas because of mental illness and psychosis.	Court had sufficient expert and observational basis to find competency; competency hearings preceded pleas.	Court: No abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence supported competency finding.
Waiver of counsel / pro se representation	Waiver was not knowing, intelligent, or adequately warned given mental state.	Jenkins was competent; court warned him and appointed advisory counsel; waiver can be inferred from conduct.	Held: Waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; not clearly erroneous.
Competency to proceed to sentencing	Post-plea evidence showed incompetence; convictions/sentences therefore infirm.	Multiple evaluations and the court’s observations supported a later finding of competency to proceed.	Court: Conflicting expert testimony existed but sufficient evidence supported competency for sentencing.
Ex post facto / effect of death-penalty repeal & referendum	Repeal (L.B. 268) took effect Aug. 30, 2015, then was stayed only later; applying death penalty after referendum violates Randolph/doctrine.	Filing of a valid referendum petition suspended the act’s operation pending certification/election; L.B. 268 never went into effect.	Held: No ex post facto violation; referendum filing suspended the repeal, so Randolph inapplicable.
Constitutionality of Nebraska death-penalty procedure (Hurst claim)	Nebraska’s scheme is unconstitutional because judges, not juries, perform mitigation weighing and proportionality.	Precedent (including this Court’s prior decisions) holds Hurst does not require jury to perform all factfinding in weighing/proportionality.	Held: Scheme constitutional as applied; Hurst does not mandate jury determination of mitigation/weighting.
Death penalty and serious mental illness / Eighth Amendment	Death penalty unconstitutional for seriously mentally ill offenders (or for all offenders per Breyer).	Supreme Court precedent permits capital punishment except for certain classes; Panetti governs competency-to-be-executed standard.	Held: Rejected broad challenge; Panetti standard controls and Jenkins failed to show the requisite inability to rationally understand execution; death sentences affirmed.
Use of plea factual basis at sentencing	Panel improperly relied on plea transcript facts (hearsay / Rule 410).	Plea transcript admissible at sentencing for certain purposes; panel relied on sentencing-phase evidence for aggravators.	Held: Admissible for sentencing context; aggravator findings were supported by sentencing-phase evidence.
Consideration of mitigating evidence (mental illness, failed commitment requests, solitary confinement)	Panel failed to give meaningful consideration to these mitigating circumstances.	Panel considered mental-health evidence, found mixed opinions, adopted nonstatutory mitigators but gave them insufficient weight; solitary confinement was largely a result of defendant’s disciplinary history.	Held: Court conducted de novo review; panel fairly considered mitigation and did not err in its conclusions; death sentences affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (trial judge best positioned to assess competency to represent oneself)
Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007) (Eighth Amendment bars execution where mental disorder prevents rational understanding of reason for execution)
Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015) (plurality/majority discussion on death-penalty Eighth Amendment challenges; dissent argued for unconstitutionality)
Bucklew v. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (2019) (recent reaffirmation that death penalty remains constitutional in general)
State v. Lotter, 301 Neb. 125 (2018) (Nebraska Supreme Court treatment of Hurst and jury role in capital sentencing)
State v. Fox, 282 Neb. 957 (2011) (competency standard and appellate review of competency findings)
State v. Randolph, 186 Neb. 297 (1971) (doctrine on legislative mitigation of punishment between offense and final judgment)