State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931

Background

Defendant Sami S. Mrza, an Iraqi immigrant who used an interpreter at trial, was convicted by a jury of first degree sexual assault arising from an incident on November 12, 2016, and sentenced to 8–15 years’ imprisonment.
The State introduced a Snapchat conversation between the victim (N.W.) and Mrza; the victim testified she recognized Mrza’s account and that the exhibit was a fair and accurate depiction of the conversation. Trial counsel did not object to the Snapchat evidence on authenticity grounds.
The prosecutor emphasized Mrza’s English-language ability during closing, calling the use of an interpreter a “charade” and arguing Mrza’s English proficiency undermined his claims about misunderstanding during police interviews. Trial counsel did not object or move for a mistrial.
The jury heard both parties’ testimony (a classic credibility contest); the victim’s testimony and prompt reports to friends, police, and a sexual assault nurse were admitted. The State did not need corroboration of the victim to obtain a conviction.
On appeal Mrza raised multiple claims, but the opinion focuses on: (1) whether Snapchat messages were properly authenticated and whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object, and (2) whether the prosecutor’s remarks about the interpreter constituted prosecutorial misconduct (or, alternatively, whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mrza)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Authentication of Snapchat messages / counsel ineffectiveness for not objecting	Snapchat exhibit was incomplete and not accurately transcribed; trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to authentication	N.W.’s testimony that the messages were between her and Mrza and that the exhibit was a fair and accurate depiction satisfied authentication; omission of other messages is a completeness issue, not authentication	Authentication was adequate; counsel not deficient for failing to object because N.W.’s testimony supported accuracy and authorship
Prosecutor’s comment that interpreter use was a “charade” (prosecutorial misconduct / plain error)	Comment expressed prosecutor’s personal belief, inflamed juror prejudice, and was not based on evidence; warrants reversal or plain-error relief	Comment was isolated; many facts about Mrza’s English proficiency were in evidence and the remainder of argument was focused on admissible evidence (voluntariness/understanding of statements)	No plain error: the inflammatory remark was isolated and did not clearly prejudice the defendant given the record and jury instructions
Counsel ineffective for failing to move for mistrial after prosecutor’s remark	Failure to move for mistrial was deficient and prejudicial	Trial record does not show why counsel did not move for mistrial; presumption counsel acted reasonably	Record is insufficient on direct appeal to resolve ineffectiveness claim; cannot conclude deficient performance or prejudice, so claim must await postconviction review
Sufficiency of evidence	Victim’s inconsistent statements undermined sufficiency; conviction should not stand	Victim’s trial testimony, if believed, alone suffices for conviction in first degree sexual assault cases	Evidence was sufficient; victim’s testimony alone could support conviction when believed by the jury

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (2018) (low threshold for authentication; proponent need not rule out all inconsistency)
State v. McGuire, 299 Neb. 762 (2018) (discusses authentication and related evidentiary principles)
Andrade v. U.S., 88 A.3d 134 (D.C. 2014) (prosecutor’s comments about interpreter were not plain error where court took curative steps)
Diaz v. U.S., 716 A.2d 173 (D.C. 1998) (prosecutor’s comments on interpreter improper but curative instructions ameliorated harm)
State v. Heredia, 253 Conn. 543 (2000) (comments on interpreter/use did not violate rights where remarks targeted demeanor and credibility)
State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 295 Neb. 1014 (discusses defendant’s language comprehension and constitutional protections)