State v. Martinez
295 Neb. 1
| Neb. | 2016Background
- Larry G. Martinez was arrested for the July 18, 2012, fatal shooting of his romantic partner, Mandy Kershman; he admitted to shooting her and led police to a gun found in his home. He was tried, convicted of first degree murder and use of a weapon, and sentenced to life plus 10–50 years.
- Martinez moved to suppress statements made to police, arguing he is deaf/hard of hearing and entitled under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-152 to a licensed interpreter; the district court denied suppression after a hearing with expert and lay testimony.
- After conviction but before sentencing, Martinez sought a competency determination; two defense experts testified he was incompetent (IQ ≈57), the State’s expert testified he was malingering and competent, and several lay witnesses described Martinez’s functioning in custody and prior work.
- The district court found Martinez competent to stand trial and proceeded to sentencing; Martinez appealed, challenging suppression, competency finding, and certain jury instructions relating to deliberation/sudden quarrel.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed statutory and factual issues de novo where appropriate and for clear error on factual findings, and affirmed the district court on all assignments.
Issues
| Issue | Martinez’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of suppression under § 20-152 (interpreter) | Martinez is deaf/hard of hearing per audiologist diagnoses and § 20-152, so statements made without a licensed interpreter must be suppressed. | Although Martinez has a hearing impairment, he did not meet the statute’s definition because he could process spoken language without an interpreter. | Court affirmed: record (DVD interview, witnesses) shows Martinez could follow/participate without an interpreter; denial not error. |
| Admissibility of lay testimony at suppression hearing | Lay testimony about Martinez’s hearing was inadmissible under evidence rules and the statute required technical proof. | Rules of evidence do not apply at suppression hearings; lay observations about communication are relevant. | Court affirmed: lay testimony admissible at suppression hearing and relevant to statutory standard. |
| Competency to stand trial | Defense experts: Martinez’s low IQ and cognitive testing show he was incompetent and unlikely restorable. | State expert and lay witnesses: Martinez was malingering; exhibited sufficient functioning (employment, managing diabetes, custody behavior) to be competent. | Court affirmed: sufficient evidence supported district court’s competency finding. |
| Jury instruction on deliberation / sudden quarrel | Trial court should have instructed that deliberation excludes acts resulting from sudden quarrel (per State v. Hinrichsen). | Hinrichsen’s suggested instruction is a later “better practice,” not a new mandatory rule; existing instructions sufficed. | Court affirmed: no plain error; instruction issue not reversible (case tried before Hinrichsen). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Raatz, 294 Neb. 852 (Neb. 2016) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State v. Woldt, 293 Neb. 265 (Neb. 2016) (factual review principles cited)
- State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 (Neb. 2016) (competency review standard referenced)
- State v. Newman, 290 Neb. 572 (Neb. 2015) (evidence admissibility principles)
- State v. Rask, 294 Neb. 612 (Neb. 2016) (appellate review of jury instructions)
- State v. Piper, 289 Neb. 364 (Neb. 2014) (suppression hearing evidence rule application)
- State v. Hinrichsen, 292 Neb. 611 (Neb. 2016) (discussion of defining deliberation in murder cases)
- State v. Guatney, 207 Neb. 501 (Neb. 1980) (competency definition authority)