State v. Oliveria-Coutinho
291 Neb. 294
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Defendant Jose C. Oliveira-Coutinho lived and worked with the Szczepanik family; the family disappeared December 17, 2009; skeletal remains of the child Christopher were later recovered and identified by DNA.
- Evidence linked defendant to postdisappearance use of the Szczepaniks’ bank cards and to items observed in surveillance footage; co-defendant Valdeir Goncalves-Santos later cooperated with the State and testified against Oliveira-Coutinho pursuant to a plea agreement.
- Police executed search warrants at two addresses on February 1, 2010; officers found items matching purchases made with the family’s cards and items bearing the defendant’s identity; defendant was placed on an ICE hold and several witnesses were later deported.
- Defendant was charged with three counts of first-degree murder and a related theft charge; jury found aggravating circumstances; after a sentencing hearing before a three-judge panel, defendant received three life sentences plus 20 years for theft.
- At trial defendant raised multiple pretrial and evidentiary objections: Batson challenge to a peremptory strike, suppression of evidence from the February 1 stop, motions about impeachment/cross-examination of the cooperating witness, admissibility of reenactment evidence, handwriting expert testimony, and admission of photographs; he also moved for dismissal based on deportation of potential witnesses and later for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Oliveira-Coutinho) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenge to State’s peremptory strike of juror B.H. | Strike was racially motivated because juror, an African‑American, said she could be fair despite past convictions in family | Strike was race‑neutral: concerns about juror’s memory, delayed disclosure of son’s convictions, and consistency with another strike | Court: State’s reasons facially race‑neutral; trial court credibility finding not clearly erroneous; Batson denied |
| Denial of pre‑submission jury sequestration | Pretrial publicity warranted sequestration throughout trial to avoid prejudice | Court admonitions and voir dire suffice; sequestration during deliberations granted | Court: No abuse of discretion; defendant failed to show prejudice |
| Motion to suppress evidence and statements from Feb 1 encounter (Fourth Amendment) | Stop/search/detention were unlawful; fruits (observations, evidence, statements) must be suppressed | Even assuming unlawful seizure, inevitable discovery, independent source, and attenuation doctrines apply; statements were remote in time and voluntary | Court: Denial of suppression affirmed; exceptions to exclusionary rule apply |
| Motion to dismiss for deportation of witnesses (compulsory process/due process) | Deportations of potential exculpatory witnesses (Gonzalez‑Mendez, Lourenco‑Batista) prejudiced defense; government acted in bad faith | No evidence of bad faith; deportations occurred before defendant disclosed alibi; defendant failed to show material, noncumulative testimony | Court: Two‑part test applied — must show bad faith and material/favorable testimony; defendant failed both prongs |
| Pretrial/evidentiary rulings: limits on cross‑examination and admission of Diaz’s/cellmate statements; admissibility of handwriting expert and reenactment evidence | Sought cross‑examination and extrinsic evidence to impeach/coerce bias and show third‑party guilt; challenged expert reliability; sought reenactment to rebut hanging testimony | Court: Specific‑acts impeachment by extrinsic evidence barred by Rule 608(2); handwriting methodology admissible under Daubert/Schafersman; reenactment insufficiently similar and irrelevant | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion — cross‑examination limits proper; expert admissible; reenactment excluded |
| Admission of forensic testimony and photographs; opening‑statement remarks (vouching) | Forensic testimony cumulative and photos unduly prejudicial; opening vouched for witness and implied judge’s role—mistrial warranted | Photographs and expert testimony were probative for identification and explanation of remains; opening remarks isolated and jury instructed on credibility and law | Court: Photographs and expert testimony admissible; opening remarks not prejudicial in context; no mistrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (peremptory strikes subject to Equal Protection analysis)
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (U.S. 2008) (third‑step Batson credibility/demeanor determinations lie with trial judge)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (trial‑court gatekeeping for expert admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert standard applies to all expert testimony)
- U.S. v. Valenzuela‑Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (U.S. 1982) (deportation of witnesses requires showing of materiality and prejudice; mere deportation insufficient)
- Youngblood v. Arizona, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (due‑process violation for destroyed evidence requires bad faith)
- State v. Nave, 284 Neb. 477 (Neb. 2012) (Nebraska application of Batson framework)
- State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 (Neb. 2014) (standards for prosecutorial misconduct and prejudice evaluation)