State v. Pierce
A-21-679
| Neb. Ct. App. | Apr 5, 2022Background
- On May 10, 2020, Katelynne Moore was struck while walking on a bypass near Auburn, NE; she suffered serious head and bodily injuries and was transported for emergency care.
- Debris at the scene (including a broken passenger-side headlight and internal vehicle parts) led investigators to identify a 2010–2012 gray Ford Fusion; Dustin S. Pierce owned a gray 2011 Ford Fusion with substantial front‑passenger‑side damage and multiple windshield fractures.
- Pierce initially told officers he hit a deer (and later reiterated that story to others), then admitted to investigators he had hit something on the bypass while looking at his phone and did not stop; he also covered his garage windows and boarded a door after learning of an investigation.
- Sheriff Brent Lottman testified as an accident‑reconstruction expert: he concluded the vehicle damage and fracture patterns were consistent with a pedestrian impact, that four central windshield fractures occurred after an initial A‑pillar impact and were not caused by deer antlers, and that debris placement showed the victim was carried forward on the vehicle for about 62 feet.
- After a bench trial the district court found Pierce not credible, convicted him of leaving the scene of a personal‑injury accident (Class III felony) and tampering with physical evidence (Class IV felony), and imposed consecutive sentences; Pierce appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Lottman’s expert testimony (Daubert/Schafersman) | Lottman was unqualified; opinions speculative; methodology and error rates not shown; pretrial Schafersman motion required | Lottman qualified by training/experience; trial court had discretion, especially in a bench trial, to admit and test reliability through cross‑examination | Admission affirmed; court did not abuse discretion; expert qualified and bench‑trial procedures relaxed Daubert formalities |
| Sufficiency of district court’s gatekeeping explanation (Zimmerman) | Trial court failed to set out reasoning showing it satisfied gatekeeping duties | In a bench trial the court has flexibility; record shows the court found the witness qualified and credible | No abdication of gatekeeping; explanation sufficient given bench‑trial context and record statements |
| Sufficiency of evidence — leaving the scene (knowledge element) | Pierce lacked knowledge he hit a person (sun glare, thought he hit an animal, stopped elsewhere) | Circumstantial evidence (lied about deer, shifted accident location, reconstruction showing victim on hood and long debris trail, adequate visibility) supports knowledge | Evidence sufficient to prove Pierce knew he struck a person; conviction affirmed |
| Sufficiency of evidence — tampering with physical evidence (intent to impair discovery) | Evidence insufficient; challenged expert testimony and intent to conceal | Testimony Pierce told others windshield marks were from deer antlers; he covered garage windows after learning of investigation; expert opinion supported non‑antler origin of marks | Evidence sufficient to prove concealment/destroying of evidence with intent to impair; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (establishes judge’s gatekeeping role for expert scientific testimony)
- Schafersman v. Agland Coop, 262 Neb. 215 (2001) (applies Daubert framework in Nebraska and identifies admissibility factors)
- Zimmerman v. Powell, 268 Neb. 422 (2004) (trial court must explain gatekeeping reasoning; requirements relaxed in bench trials)
- Fickle v. State, 273 Neb. 990 (2007) (bench‑trial context affords greater flexibility in admitting expert testimony based on experience)
- State v. Braesch, 292 Neb. 930 (2016) (trial court may admit expert evidence in bench trials subject to later assessment of reliability)