State v. Price, 306 Neb. 38

Background

Price was tried twice for aiding and abetting robbery and aiding and abetting first-degree assault arising from an October 3, 2014 attack that left the victim with severe traumatic brain injury.
First trial (Dec. 2016) ended in a deadlocked jury; the court declared a mistrial after the foreperson said the jury was hopelessly deadlocked; Price sought to poll jurors and later filed a plea in bar (double jeopardy), which was denied.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the plea in bar; further review was denied, establishing those rulings as the law of the case.
At the second trial (June 2018), the State presented eyewitness testimony identifying Price (Nartey), surveillance video placing Price in the area, clothing seized from Price’s residence, and other circumstantial evidence (including a jail-call and blood on a co-defendant’s shoe); Price did not testify.
The jury convicted Price on both counts; the trial court denied a motion for new trial and sentenced Price to concurrent terms of 25–40 years’ imprisonment.
Price appealed multiple issues; his standalone ineffective-assistance assignment on direct appeal was not considered because it failed to specify alleged deficiencies as required by State v. Mrza.

Issues

Issue	Price’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Law-of-the-case / mistrial & plea in bar	Court erred by not polling jurors individually on each count and by overruling plea in bar (double jeopardy)	Court of Appeals already considered and affirmed mistrial/plea denial; those rulings control under law-of-the-case	Affirmed; Court of Appeals decision is law of the case; no reconsideration warranted
Prosecutorial misconduct (closing)	Prosecutor made multiple improper statements (opinion on credibility, misstated evidence, references to other bad acts) — though Price failed to object at trial	Remarks were reasonable inferences from the evidence, not personal government opinions or prejudicial misconduct	No plain error; comments permissible in context
Motion for new trial	New trial warranted based on prosecutorial misconduct, alleged prejudicial lineup/mugshot testimony, and insufficiency of evidence	Remarks and testimony were minor/non-prejudicial; evidence was sufficient	No abuse of discretion in denying new trial
Sufficiency of evidence	Identification unreliable and no direct forensic link to Price; evidence insufficient to convict	Nartey’s identification plus surveillance, seized items, and circumstantial proof permit aiding-and-abetting convictions	Evidence sufficient when viewed in State’s favor; convictions affirmed
Excessive sentence	Sentences excessive; court failed to give adequate weight to mitigating factors and relative culpability	Sentences within statutory limits; court considered mitigating and aggravating factors	No abuse of discretion; sentences (25–40 years concurrent) affirmed
Ineffective assistance of counsel (procedural)	Counsel ineffective (general assertion)	Assignment fails to meet Mrza requirement to state specific deficiencies on direct appeal	Not considered on direct appeal due to inadequate assignment of error

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (2019) (direct-appeal assignments of ineffective assistance must specifically allege deficient performance)
State v. Combs, 297 Neb. 422 (2017) (better practice is to inquire whether jury is deadlocked on each count before granting mistrial)
State v. Gonzales, 294 Neb. 627 (2016) (prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences from evidence; improper only when expressing personal belief as government imprimatur)
State v. Stubbendieck, 302 Neb. 702 (2019) (definition and limits of aiding-and-abetting liability)
State v. Case, 304 Neb. 829 (2020) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of criminal evidence)
State v. Becker, 304 Neb. 693 (2019) (appellate review of sentencing for abuse of discretion)
State v. Lavalleur, 298 Neb. 237 (2017) (law-of-the-case doctrine described)
State v. Thomas, 210 Neb. 298 (1981) (liability for injuries under conspiratorial/participant theory)