State v. Nolan
292 Neb. 118
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Nolan was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and sentenced to life plus 10 years consecutive; direct appeal affirmed convictions and sentences.
- Nolan filed a pro se postconviction relief motion alleging 14 ineffective-assistance claims (A–N).
- The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing except on some claims; the postconviction court agreed to hear certain claims but denied others.
- The State concedes reversal is warranted for claims A, B, and C and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing on those claims.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reverses to the extent of remanding for hearings on A, B, and C and otherwise affirms the district court’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A, B, C require an evidentiary hearing | Nolan asserts trial counsel failed to consult experts and call Anderson (A–C). | Nolan contends the record was insufficient to resolve these claims on direct appeal. | Evidence hearings warranted on A, B, and C. |
| Prosecutor's closing remarks and witness credibility (J) | Nolan claims appellate counsel should have raised prosecutorial misconduct about closing remarks. | State argues remarks were proper evaluation of witnesses and defense strategy. | No prosecutorial misconduct; no relief for J. |
| Exhibits 169–170 (G) admissibility | Exhibits 169–170 were improper prejudicial mugshots. | Photographs had independent evidentiary value and were not unduly prejudicial. | Exhibits 169–170 admissible; no relief for G. |
| Firearms expert and E claim (E) | Trial counsel should have retained a firearms expert to rebut State’s bullets evidence. | Bullets linked to .44-caliber gun; inconclusive link to Nolan’s gun; expert would not have changed outcome. | No prejudice; no relief for E. |
| Copeland hearsay testimony (N) | Trial counsel should have objected to hearsay about location where gun found. | Admission was harmless given other strong evidence. | Harmless error; no relief for N. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Huston, 291 Neb. 708 (Neb. 2015) (postconviction standard and review; de novo for insufficiency; hearing when factual allegations exist)
- State v. Crawford, 291 Neb. 362 (Neb. 2015) (ineffective assistance; two-prong Strickland test; prejudice required)
- State v. Huston, 291 Neb. 708 (Neb. 2015) (reiterated standard for evidentiary hearing in postconviction)
- State v. Barfield, 272 Neb. 502 (Neb. 2006) (prosecutorial misconduct in closing; identifier of improper remarks)
- State v. Gresham, 276 Neb. 187 (Neb. 2008) (closing argument misconduct framework; improper vs. permissible argument)
- State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 (Neb. 2014) (spirit of summation; distinguishing misconduct from permissible argument)
- State v. Nolan, 283 Neb. 50 (Neb. 2012) (direct appeal background and identifications; pre/postconviction context)
- Miller v. Alabama, No official Neb. reporter here; 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (age-based mandatory life without parole; retroactivity; not applicable here)
- State v. Taylor, 287 Neb. 386 (Neb. 2014) (gun found post-crime; hearsay considerations invoked)