State v. Lauhead, 306 Neb. 701

Background

In Nov 2016 Lauhead was charged with five counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child and five counts of child abuse; the case was later resolved by a stipulated bench trial on amended counts (one attempted first-degree sexual assault of a child and one child abuse count).
Lauhead sought a competency evaluation; Feb 2017 evaluator Mindy Abel found him incompetent and the court committed him to the Lincoln Regional Center (LRC) for restoration.
Abel later reported Lauhead could be competent if specific accommodations were provided; the State requested a second evaluation.
Theodore DeLaet conducted a court-ordered evaluation and concluded Lauhead met the statutory competency standard but recommended accommodations (simple language, slower pace, one point at a time).
The district court found Lauhead competent to stand trial (without express conditions), denied his request for a disability consultant, accepted the stipulated facts, convicted him on both amended counts, and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 20–22 years and 3 years.
On appeal Lauhead challenged (1) the competency finding, (2) the court’s failure to identify/provide accommodations, (3) sentence excessiveness, and (4) placement in the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS) given his limitations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in finding Lauhead competent to stand trial	Lauhead: Evaluators required accommodations; he was only conditionally competent, so court erred in finding full competence	State: Two expert reports and Lauhead’s functional abilities support unconditional competence; court considered reports and precautions	Court: Finding of competence supported by substantial evidence; Nebraska law recognizes only competent or incompetent (no conditional competence)
Whether court should have identified/provided accommodations or appointed a consultant	Lauhead: Court failed to implement recommended accommodations or appoint a consultant to enable competence	State: Many accommodations applied to an adversarial trial or to testimony; Lauhead waived jury and relied on stipulated facts; court said it would be mindful of recommendations	Court: No error—accommodations were not required for a bench trial on stipulated facts and the court noted the recommendations regarding pace if he testified
Whether sentences were excessive	Lauhead: Sentences excessive; court failed to adequately weigh his mentality and disability	State: Sentences fall within statutory ranges; court considered relevant sentencing factors and rejected probation as inappropriate	Court: No abuse of discretion; court considered required factors and imposed sentences within statutory limits
Whether placement in NDCS violated his rights given his inability to navigate the system	Lauhead: Incarceration in NDCS would be cruel/unconstitutional given his disabilities	State: Because Lauhead was properly found competent, placement and sentence are lawful	Court: Claim fails—competency determination stands, so NDCS placement was permissible under the sentence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Guatney, 207 Neb. 501, 299 N.W.2d 538 (1980) (Nebraska recognizes a binary competency standard—competent or incompetent).
State v. Garcia, 302 Neb. 406, 923 N.W.2d 725 (2019) (competency determination will not be disturbed absent insufficient evidence).
State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228, 917 N.W.2d 895 (2018) (court will not disturb a sentence within statutory limits absent abuse of discretion).
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 369, 859 N.W.2d 877 (2015) (definition and standard for abuse of discretion).
State v. Baldwin, 283 Neb. 678, 811 N.W.2d 267 (2012) (lists factors a sentencing court should consider).