State v. John, 310 Neb. 958

Victim Linda Chase was found dead in her bathtub from multiple stab wounds; evidence suggested the scene had been cleaned and a heavily bloodstained rug was in a dryer.
Isacc John, who lived with Chase, was located soon after wearing shorts with red staining; toxicology showed only THC. He was charged with first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon.
Multiple competency evaluations yielded conflicting opinions: Dr. Gutnik diagnosed schizophrenia and found John incompetent/more likely genuine; Lincoln Regional Center evaluators (including Dr. Hartmann and Dr. Browning) concluded John was malingering and competent after extended observation. The district court found John competent.
John waived a jury; the bench trial proceeded largely on stipulated reports and photos. John presented expert testimony (Gutnik, Newring) claiming he was psychotic and legally insane at the time of the killing; the State presented experts (Hartmann, Cimpl Bohn) who found malingering and/or that John knew right from wrong.
The district court rejected John’s insanity defense (burden: preponderance) and convicted him of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon; it imposed consecutive sentences (life plus 40–50 years). John appealed, asserting error in the insanity ruling and ineffective assistance of trial counsel (waiver of jury; stipulation to facts that allegedly precluded a self-defense claim).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether John proved legal insanity at the time of the killing	Gutnik and Newring: John suffered schizophrenia and could not appreciate nature/consequences or distinguish right from wrong	State experts and evidence (cleanup, jail behavior, statements about "proving" he was crazy) support malingering and that John understood wrongfulness	Court affirmed: factfinder could reject insanity; sufficient evidence supports the finding John was not legally insane
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for waiving a jury	Counsel should not have waived jury given prior findings of malingering and competency concerns	Record contains no testimony from trial counsel explaining the waiver; the record is inadequate to resolve the claim on direct appeal	Court: record insufficient to decide this ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating to underlying facts, preventing a self-defense claim	Stipulation deprived John of opportunity to argue self-defense; testimonial evidence supported a self-defense narrative	Self-defense evidence was presented at trial; stipulation to documentary evidence did not foreclose consideration, and the massacre/cleanup facts undercut self-defense; no prejudice shown	Court: no prejudice from stipulation; claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. McGhee, 274 Neb. 660 (Neb. 2007) (appellate limits on reweighing evidence; standards for insanity burden)
State v. France, 279 Neb. 49 (Neb. 2009) (defendant bears preponderance burden to prove insanity)
State v. Bigelow, 303 Neb. 729 (Neb. 2019) (definitions and elements of insanity defense under Nebraska common law)
State v. Collins, 307 Neb. 581 (Neb. 2020) (review on direct appeal of ineffective-assistance claims when record permits)
State v. Johnson, 308 Neb. 331 (Neb. 2021) (appellate deference to factfinder on insanity determinations)