State v. Mueller, 920 N.W.2d 424

Defendant Zachary A. Mueller was tried in Morrill County for first‑degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person arising from the November–December 2015 killing of Pedro Adrian Dominguez (body found in barrel; autopsy: single gunshot to head).
Key eyewitness: Felicia Talley (passenger/companion) testified Mueller shot Dominguez in the back seat of a vehicle en route from Bridgeport toward Kimball; Talley drove afterwards to Wyoming and later relinquished the gun; Talley received immunity for her statements.
Investigators found burned items and a burned Volkswagen connected to Mueller; other witnesses gave statements linking Mueller to the barrel and burned vehicle items were recovered at Mueller’s residence.
Jury convicted Mueller on all counts; district court imposed mandatory life for murder, consecutive 20–40 year terms for use and possession convictions, and credited 371 days’ time served against the possession sentence.
On appeal Mueller challenged several jury instructions (venue, premeditation, intoxication, possession elements), argued insufficient evidence for first‑degree murder, asserted sentences were excessive, and sought credit for 91 additional days served in Wyoming prior to his transfer to Nebraska.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mueller)	Held
Venue instruction	Instruction based on §29‑1301.02 accurately allowed venue if vehicle passed through Morrill County	Instruction omitted statutory phrase and §29‑1306 would be more apt for homicide across counties/states	No prejudicial error; instruction adequate given evidence showing shooting occurred in Nebraska and Morrill County was permissible venue
Premeditation instruction	Court instruction (including instantaneous premeditation language) clarifies statute and is consistent with case law	Second sentence not in statute; violates separation of powers/statutory interpretation	Affirmed; instruction consistent with precedent (Custer/Taylor) and valid statutory interpretation
Intoxication instruction	Voluntary intoxication evidence admitted but statute §29‑122 controls; proposed instruction misstated law	Requested intoxication instruction should be given; intoxication negates requisite intent	Refused; §29‑122 bars voluntary intoxication defense absent clear/convincing proof of involuntariness; no such evidence here
Credit for time served	N/A	91 days in Wyoming after Nebraska arrest warrant should be credited against Nebraska sentence	Remand/modify: court erred — additional 91 days must be credited (total 462 days credited against possession sentence)

State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734 (appellate standard for reviewing jury instructions and reading instructions as a whole)
State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88 (premeditation instruction precedent; courts may clarify statutory definitions)
State v. Taylor, 282 Neb. 297 (supporting authority for premeditation instruction language)
State v. Abejide, 293 Neb. 687 (upholding §29‑122 against due process challenge; intoxication statutory framework)
State v. Banes, 268 Neb. 805 (credit for time served statutory interpretation; §83‑1,106 mandatory credit rule)
State v. Leahy, (cited authority in sentencing review) (appellate review standard for sentencing and credit issues)