State v. Prior
973 N.W.2d 726
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- On Oct. 18, 2017, W.R. was the victim of a masked home-invasion robbery and sexual assault; she partially saw and heard her assailant and later provided a detailed description including voice and physical marks.
- Police canvassed the neighborhood, linked a white Lexus (registered to Stephen Prior) to the area, and showed W.R. a photo lineup; Prior became a person of interest.
- Surveillance near an apartment complex located Prior’s Lexus; officers later found an abandoned bag by the garages containing Prior’s driver’s license, a loaded 9-mm handgun, rope, zip ties, and other items.
- DNA testing connected Prior to items from the crime scene, Prior’s Lexus, the abandoned bag, a gaiter mask, and a condom found in the victim’s bedroom; W.R.’s DNA was also found on some bag items.
- Prior was arrested Oct. 20, 2017; a booking strip search recorded physical characteristics consistent with W.R.’s description. He was convicted on multiple counts (including first-degree sexual assault, burglary, robbery, and firearm offenses), adjudicated a habitual criminal, and sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 165–220 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prior) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge search of abandoned bag | Bag contained Prior’s personal items and was left to be retrieved later; he retained a privacy interest. | The bag was voluntarily abandoned in a public/semi-public place and Prior denied ownership; officers reasonably could treat it as abandoned. | Court: No Fourth Amendment protection — bag abandoned; suppression denied. |
| Suppression of pretrial voice identification | W.R.’s in-court voice ID stemmed from hearing Prior speak at public pretrial hearings without notice; violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel (and argued on appeal, Fifth Amendment). | Identification was not police-arranged; W.R. attended voluntarily; reliability tested at trial through confrontation and cross-examination. | Court: No Wade-type violation; admission upheld; appellate Fifth‑Amendment claim not considered (not preserved). |
| Suppression of physical characteristics (strip search and ex parte order) | Jail SOP allegedly not followed for strip search; ex parte order to obtain characteristics was improper/abnormal and/or not served on Prior. | Strip search was authorized by SOP given violent charges; characteristics were lawfully observed at booking so ex parte order was unnecessary but harmless. | Court: Characteristics lawfully obtained via authorized strip search; ex parte order irregularities immaterial; suppression denied. |
| Admission of prior acts testimony (Jacquilyn, Angelique) under §27‑404 | Prior contended the testimony was impermissible propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial. | Testimony was relevant to identity, motive, intent, plan, and opportunity; limiting instructions were given; probative value outweighed prejudice. | Court: Admission within trial court’s discretion; evidence admissible for non‑propensity purposes. |
| Motion to secure out‑of‑state (Kansas) witnesses | Prior sought subpoenas to obtain testimony linking a Kansas serial rapist theory as exculpatory/alternative perpetrator. | Affidavit failed to show relevance or materiality; proposed testimony speculative; even if relevant, rulings would be harmless given overwhelming evidence. | Court: Motion denied; any error harmless given strong inculpatory evidence. |
| Directed verdict / insufficiency of evidence | State relied on circumstantial evidence and DNA was argued as weak; therefore no rational trier of fact could convict beyond a reasonable doubt. | Multiple independent proofs: victim ID (voice/description), surveillance, physical evidence, and DNA linking Prior to crime items. | Court: Evidence sufficient; denial of directed verdict proper. |
| Excessive / consecutive sentences | Sentences excessive and punitive; convictions stemmed from same episode so sentences should run concurrently. | Sentences within statutory/habitual limits; offenses have distinct elements; court considered sentencing factors and victim impact; consecutive terms discretionary. | Court: Sentences within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion; consecutive terms upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853 (Neb. 2020) (adopted test for abandonment of personal property under the Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Garcia, 302 Neb. 406 (Neb. 2019) (two‑part standard of review for suppression rulings: factual findings for clear error, legal questions de novo)
- Basinski v. United States, 226 F.3d 829 (7th Cir. 2000) (abandonment requires objective demonstration that defendant relinquished possessory interest)
- United States v. Nowak, 825 F.3d 946 (8th Cir. 2016) (abandonment analyzed by totality of circumstances; consider physical relinquishment and denial of ownership)
- United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967) (post‑indictment, police‑arranged lineups implicate Sixth Amendment right to counsel)
- State v. Nolan, 283 Neb. 50 (Neb. 2012) (suppression of identification evidence requires showing undue suggestion by law enforcement)
- State v. Newman, 4 Neb. App. 265 (Neb. App. 1996) (other‑acts evidence may be admitted to show identity, plan, or to place defendant in area/time relevant to charged offense)