State v. Kalita, 12 N.W.3d 499

James R. Kalita was convicted in county court of second degree criminal trespass and refusal to obey a lawful order after he refused to remove a flagpole from the Nebraska State Capitol, despite being told by security and police that poles were prohibited.
Capitol regulations specifically forbid the use of poles to hold signs, but Kalita argued that his item was a flag, not a sign.
Kalita did not raise any constitutional challenge to the statutes or regulations in the county court proceedings.
After conviction, Kalita appealed to the district court, raising, for the first time, as-applied constitutional challenges and arguing insufficient evidence for the convictions.
The district court affirmed the convictions, finding the constitutional claim without merit and sufficient evidence to support the verdicts.
Kalita then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, focusing again on the constitutional challenges and sufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	Kalita's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Forfeiture of Constitutional Challenge	As-applied constitutional issue preserved by not guilty plea; challenge raised on appeal.	Issue not properly raised in county court, thus forfeited.	Forfeited; must be raised in trial court.
Sufficiency of the Evidence	No violation because flag not a sign; therefore, order was not lawful and evidence insufficient.	Law enforcement's order was lawful under regulations; evidence showed violation.	Evidence sufficient; convictions affirmed.
Lawfulness of Law Enforcement's Order	No lawful order because regulations didn’t cover flags.	Officers had authority to order removal/exit regardless of technicality.	Order was lawful given statutory authority.
Raising Issues on Intermediate Appeal	Constitutional claims properly raised on appeal.	Raising in district court does not cure failure in county court.	Raising on appeal does not cure forfeiture.

State v. Harris, 284 Neb. 214 (2012) (explaining preservation of as-applied constitutional challenges requires calling the issue to trial court's attention)
State v. Perina, 282 Neb. 463 (2011) (distinguishing facial and as-applied constitutional challenges; explicit raising required at trial)
State v. Ledingham, 217 Neb. 135 (1984) (district and appellate courts review for error based on the trial record, not de novo; importance of first raising issues at trial)
State v. Schreck, 226 Neb. 172 (1987) (constitutional issue not properly raised at trial court is forfeited on appeal)