State v. Lauhead, 306 Neb. 701

Lauhead was charged with five counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child and five counts of child abuse; charges were later reduced by stipulation to attempted first-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse.
After a defense motion, Dr. Mindy Abel evaluated Lauhead and initially found him incompetent; the district court committed him to Lincoln Regional Center (LRC) for restoration.
After treatment, Abel and a second evaluator, Dr. Theodore DeLaet, both concluded Lauhead met Nebraska’s competency standard but recommended trial accommodations due to extremely low cognitive functioning.
The district court found Lauhead competent to stand trial (without imposing conditional competency or mandatory accommodations), denied appointment of a disability consultant, and accepted a stipulated-facts bench trial.
Lauhead was convicted on the amended charges and sentenced to concurrent terms of 20–22 years and 3 years; he argued on appeal that the competency finding, lack of accommodations, sentence length, and placement in the Department of Correctional Services violated his rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lauhead)	Held
Whether Lauhead was competent to stand trial	Competency finding supported by two evaluators and record facts showing basic functioning	Incompetent due to extremely low IQ and need for accommodations	Court affirmed competency finding; evidence sufficient
Whether court erred by not identifying/providing accommodations	Many recommended accommodations were for an adversarial jury trial and testimony; not required for bench trial on stipulated facts	Court failed to identify and implement accommodations necessary for meaningful participation	Court held no error; Nebraska recognizes only competent/incompetent (no conditional competency) and accommodations not required here
Whether sentences were excessive	Sentences within statutory ranges; court considered appropriate factors including mentality	Sentences excessive because court did not adequately weigh Lauhead’s mental limitations	Court found no abuse of discretion; sentencing factors considered and within limits
Whether placement in DOCS violated rights because Lauhead couldn’t manage in prison	Competency finding makes incarceration lawful; court may sentence to DOCS	Incarceration would be cruel/unusual because Lauhead cannot read or comprehend prison rules and cannot survive system	Court rejected the claim; placement constitutional given competency and lawful sentence

State v. Guatney, 207 Neb. 501, 299 N.W.2d 538 (1980) (discusses Nebraska competency standard)
State v. Garcia, 302 Neb. 406, 923 N.W.2d 725 (2019) (appellate review standard for competency findings)
State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228, 917 N.W.2d 895 (2018) (appellate deference to sentencing within statutory limits)
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 369, 859 N.W.2d 877 (2015) (definition of abuse of discretion)
State v. Baldwin, 283 Neb. 678, 811 N.W.2d 267 (2012) (factors a sentencing judge should consider)