State v. Lorello, 314 Neb. 385

Victim Michael Sodoro met appellant Ross Lorello at a rental house on Dec. 28, 2020; Sodoro was later found shot in the house's garage crawlspace.
Surveillance and witness testimony showed Lorello (wearing an orange sweatshirt) at the property; a neighbor saw a large man in an orange sweatshirt exit the garage and later identified Lorello from news photos.
Forensic evidence tied Lorello to the scene and weapon: an orange sweatshirt with Sodoro's blood and mixed DNA, Lorello's prints and DNA in the house and on clothing, and a .22 revolver with Lorello's DNA and matching class characteristics of recovered fragments found in the Ford Edge Lorello used.
Investigators recovered surveillance footage and vehicle navigation data showing movements of the Ford Edge and Sodoro's truck; one compiled exhibit (Ex. 364) was a slowed split‑screen video juxtaposing footage of Lorello walking with footage of an unidentified person walking near where Sodoro's truck had been.
At trial Lorello objected to Ex. 364 as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial; the court admitted it (no expert gait testimony permitted). A jury convicted Lorello of first‑degree murder and use of a deadly weapon; the court imposed consecutive prison terms.
On appeal Lorello challenged (1) admission of the slowed split‑screen video, (2) sufficiency of the evidence, and (3) trial counsel’s failure to investigate alleged juror interactions with victim’s family/prosecution staff.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lorello)	Held
Admissibility of slowed split‑screen video (Ex. 364)	Video was a demonstrative tool to let jurors compare known images of Lorello with unidentified footage; probative and admissible	Slowed/compiled video was manipulated, irrelevant, and unfairly prejudicial because it invited an unfounded identification	Admission not an abuse of discretion: video was same footage slowed to aid comparison, jury had seen real‑time clips, and probative value outweighed prejudice
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict	Circumstantial and forensic evidence (DNA, prints, weapon, surveillance, inconsistent statements) supports identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Lack of direct eyewitnesses, no precise time of death, and absence of certain evidence undermine identity finding	Evidence sufficient: viewed in prosecution's favor a rational juror could find Lorello guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Ineffective assistance for failing to investigate juror interactions	N/A (State defends adequacy of representation implicitly)	Trial counsel failed to investigate reported juror conversations with victim’s family or prosecutor presence; counsel performance was deficient	Claim alleged with enough particularity for appeal, but record insufficient to decide on direct appeal; remand/postconviction procedures appropriate for full development

State v. Hill, 298 Neb. 675 (sets standard that admissibility is governed by Nebraska Evidence Rules and review is for abuse of discretion when rule commits question to trial court)
State v. Bryant, 311 Neb. 206 (articulates sufficiency standard for criminal convictions—view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Miranda, 313 Neb. 358 (explains when ineffective‑assistance claims may be addressed on direct appeal)
State v. Abligo, 312 Neb. 74 (low bar for relevance; probative value need only be more than nothing)
State v. Tucker, 301 Neb. 856 (relevance defined as tending to alter probability of a material fact)
Com. v. Cash, 635 Pa. 451 (Pa. 2016) (upheld admission of slow‑motion video where it enhanced identification and understanding and did not unduly prejudice jury)
State v. Baldwin, 283 Neb. 678 (discusses trial court's discretion under Neb. Evid. R. 403)
State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773 (rejects argument State must disprove every alternate hypothesis)