State v. Pope
943 N.W.2d 294
Neb.2020Background
- August 2015: three related shootings in Omaha (Aug 5, 6, 8) — victims Deprecia Neelon and Garion Johnson were fatally shot; another shooting earlier that month.
- Physical evidence: Pope’s partial palm print on a .357 revolver; ballistics tied that revolver to Johnson’s killing; two casings from Neelon’s scene matched a .45 found in Marcus Short’s bedroom; other casings were from an unknown .45 semiautomatic.
- Investigative links: a minivan registered to Pope’s mother was linked to one scene; cell‑site data placed Pope near the scenes; DNA from a buccal swab of Pope matched DNA on clothing seized from Short’s bedroom.
- Identification evidence: eyewitness Marcella saw the shooter briefly on Aug 5, later saw Pope in a courthouse and identified him; she subsequently identified Pope in a photo lineup (one photo matched an image shown on TV).
- Motions and trial rulings: district court found the DNA‑warrant affidavit insufficient but admitted the DNA under the good‑faith exception; denied suppression of Marcella’s ID (no police‑suggestion shown); court gave felony‑murder and aiding‑and‑abetting instructions but refused Pope’s proposed proximate‑cause and modified aiding‑and‑abetting language.
- Procedural posture: jury convicted Pope of two counts of first‑degree murder, related weapon counts, and possession by a prohibited person; Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed (filed May 29, 2020).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Felony‑murder jury instruction / proximate cause | State: instructions adequately required killing to occur "during the course of" arson. | Pope: jury should have been told arson must be the proximate cause of Neelon’s death (no efficient intervening cause like the shooting). | Court: no proximate cause instruction required — no dispute Neelon died from gunshot wounds and shooting was closely connected to the arson; instruction adequate. |
| 2) Refusal to give Pope’s aiding‑and‑abetting instruction | State: NJI instruction fairly presented law; language functionally covered Pope’s concerns. | Pope: tendered language (from Stubbendieck) was correct and necessary to avoid conviction based on mere presence. | Court: tendered language was correct but not prejudicially omitted because jury instructions, read together, covered the substance (including that mere presence/acquiescence is insufficient). |
| 3) Admissibility of DNA obtained under warrant | State: even if affidavit lacked probable cause, officers reasonably relied on the warrant (good‑faith exception). | Pope: affidavit insufficient; DNA should have been suppressed. | Court: district court found affidavit insufficient but admitted DNA under good‑faith exception; on appeal Pope waived the claim by failing to object to the DNA expert’s testimony at trial. |
| 4) Suppression of Marcella’s photographic ID | State: lineup was not unduly suggestive and there was no improper police conduct; reliability for jury to assess. | Pope: photo used in lineup had been broadcast on TV earlier; identification was unreliable given brief observation and time delay. | Court: no evidence police arranged suggestiveness; preliminary reliability hearing not required; admissibility for jury — district court did not err. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McGuire, 286 Neb. 494, 837 N.W.2d 767 (jury‑instruction standard)
- State v. Quintana, 261 Neb. 38, 621 N.W.2d 121 (felony‑murder/proximate‑cause instruction guidance)
- State v. Harris, 194 Neb. 74, 230 N.W.2d 203 (proximate‑cause instruction warranted where intervening cause is in dispute)
- State v. Stubbendieck, 302 Neb. 702, 924 N.W.2d 711 (aiding‑and‑abetting instruction language)
- State v. Nolan, 283 Neb. 50, 807 N.W.2d 520 (Due Process / eyewitness ID — no preliminary reliability inquiry absent police suggestiveness)
- Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012) (Due Process does not require pretrial reliability inquiry where ID not caused by police suggestion)
- State v. Molina, 271 Neb. 488, 713 N.W.2d 412 (preservation of objection rules)
- State v. Weathers, 304 Neb. 402, 935 N.W.2d 185 (standards on review for suppression and instructions)
