State v. Lester
898 N.W.2d 299
Neb.2017Background
- On April 14, 2014, a confrontation at an Omaha park between two groups culminated in shots fired from the passenger side of a vehicle; Tielor Williams died and Schmitt was wounded.
- Witnesses gave conflicting accounts about who fired; several eyewitnesses (including Terpstra, Freedom, and Victoria) identified Adrian Lester as the shooter; others could not see or identified someone in a black hoodie.
- Physical items (an orange shirt and a gold lighter) linked to Lester were recovered at a house but were not DNA-tested; some witnesses had smoked marijuana before the incident.
- Lester was charged with first degree murder, first degree assault, robbery, attempted robbery, and four counts of using a deadly weapon; a jury convicted on all counts and the district court imposed consecutive sentences.
- Lester appealed, asserting four errors: (1) denial of his Batson challenge to the State’s peremptory strike of a black prospective juror (P.S.); (2) exclusion of impeachment testimony; (3) denial of his motion for new trial (based on prosecutorial misconduct and newly discovered evidence); and (4) insufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Lester's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Batson challenge to peremptory strike of P.S. | Strike was racially motivated because two black panelists were struck and jury had no primary black jurors | State gave race-neutral reasons: speech/understanding issues, juror’s technical occupation, and juror’s emphasis on drugs/alcohol affecting memory | Court: No clear error; reasons facially race-neutral and district court’s credibility finding sustained |
| 2) Exclusion of impeachment evidence (Jaslyn’s testimony that Terpstra said he had a gun 2 months earlier) | Testimony was admissible to impeach Terpstra and show prior possession of a gun | Trial court: testimony was hearsay/improper extrinsic impeachment and remote in time; exclusion proper | Even if exclusion erred, it was harmless because other impeachment evidence was admitted; no reversible error |
| 3) Motion for new trial — prosecutorial burden-shifting argument | State’s closing implied Lester should have tested evidence, shifting burden to defense; this warranted mistrial | State: comment was response to testimony about who orders testing and did not shift burden; jury was instructed on burden of proof | Court: No abuse of discretion in denying mistrial; jury instructions and defense argument reaffirmed State’s burden; no unfair prejudice |
| 3b) Motion for new trial — newly discovered evidence (Brewer Facebook post) | Brewer’s post after verdict suggests Brewer may have been shooter and exculpates Lester | State: post ambiguous and not newly discovered or clearly exculpatory | Court: Post was public and ambiguous; not newly discovered nor likely to produce different result; denial affirmed |
| 4) Sufficiency of the evidence | Witness contradictions and investigative gaps undermine proof beyond a reasonable doubt | State: evidence (identifications, physical items, witness testimony) sufficient when viewed favorably to prosecution | Court: Evidence sufficient; credibility/resolution of conflicts left to jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (court forbids race-based peremptory strikes)
- Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (illustrates how comparative juror analysis can show pretext in Batson inquiries)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (on evaluating prosecutor’s reasons and trial-court determinations in Batson analysis)
- State v. Oliveira-Coutinho, 291 Neb. 294 (Nebraska discussion of Batson framework and peremptory challenges)
- State v. McHenry, 250 Neb. 614 (merger rule referenced for sentencing; cited in background jurisprudence)