State v. Mata
934 N.W.2d 475
Neb.2019Background
- Raymond Mata was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, and kidnapping in the death of a 3-year-old; gruesome forensic evidence tied him to the killing.
- A three-judge panel originally sentenced Mata to death; this was vacated on direct appeal under Ring and remanded for a jury-determined penalty phase; on remand a jury found an aggravator and a three-judge panel again imposed death.
- Mata pursued multiple rounds of appeals and postconviction proceedings; counsel was appointed after this court’s Mata III decision and Mata later filed amended postconviction motions (Dec. 2017, Mar. 2018).
- Mata’s second amended postconviction motion raised (1) that he was brought into the courtroom shackled during jury selection, (2) that Nebraska’s use of a three-judge panel to find/ weigh mitigation violates the Sixth Amendment, (3) that 2015 L.B. 268 (which would have abolished the death penalty) and its subsequent referendum repeal violated due process/Eighth Amendment/ bill of attainder prohibitions as applied to him, and (4) that executive-branch participation in the referendum violated separation-of-powers principles.
- The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing; Mata appealed and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shackling during jury selection | Mata: being walked into courtroom in shackles before voir dire violated Deck/Holbrook and his rights; issue was not addressed under Deck on direct appeal | State: claim was or could have been raised on direct appeal and is procedurally barred | Procedurally barred; Deck did not announce a new rule that would save the claim and Mata already litigated shackling under Holbrook on direct appeal |
| Three-judge panel finding/ weighing mitigation | Mata: Hurst created a new rule requiring jury to find/consider mitigation; his postconviction claim is timely or tolled | State: Hurst did not create new rule expanding Ring/Apprendi to require juries to find or weigh mitigation; claim is time-barred under §29-3001(4) | Untimely and procedurally barred; Hurst did not newly recognize a right to have juries find or weigh mitigating circumstances (Lotter controlling) |
| Effect of L.B. 268 and its referendum repeal on sentence (Eighth/Due Process/Bill of Attainder) | Mata: L.B. 268 changed his sentence to life; repeal by referendum reimposed death, violating due process / cruel and unusual punishment / bill of attainder | State: L.B. 268 was suspended by filing of referendum petition before its effective date, so it never changed Mata’s sentence | Claim fails: L.B. 268 was suspended on Aug 26 (petition filing) and never took effect; therefore no intervening change in sentence occurred and constitutional challenges fail |
| Separation of powers challenge to executive participation in referendum | Mata: Governor and State Treasurer’s leadership/support of the repeal effort violated separation of powers and rendered referendum invalid, depriving Mata of rights | State: even if improper, participation did not taint or invalidate the public petition/vote; Mata alleges no facts showing influence on outcome | Claim fails: Mata alleged no facts showing any effect on the referendum result; even proven dual-service violations would not automatically void the referendum; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (U.S. 2005) (defendant cannot be shackled before jury during sentencing unless essential state interest specific to trial)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (U.S. 1986) (inherently prejudicial courtroom practices require justification)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (jury must find any fact that increases maximum authorized punishment in capital cases)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (legislature cannot remove from jury findings that increase prescribed penalties)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (applied Ring to Florida statute; did not create new rule requiring jury to find/ weigh mitigation)
- State v. Lotter, 301 Neb. 125 (Neb. 2018) (Hurst did not newly recognize a right requiring jury to find or weigh mitigating circumstances for §29-3001(4) triggering)
- State v. Jenkins, 303 Neb. 676 (Neb. 2019) (referendum filing that appears to have sufficient signatures suspends operation of statute pending verification)
- State v. Mata, 266 Neb. 668 (Neb. 2003) (Mata I addressing shackling claim on direct appeal)