State v. Said, 306 Neb. 314

Background

Victim Adulma Khamis suffered blunt‑force head trauma after a fight near Pioneer Park and died; security camera footage showed an altercation between Khamis and Ahmed Said.
Said was arrested and interviewed by Officer Steven Sloan on April 19, April 20, and June 5, 2017; Said initially refused to speak at the start of the April 20 interview but officers continued questioning; he said “no more talking” about 21 minutes in.
Said wrote an April 29, 2017 letter from jail asking his sister to investigate witnesses and camera angles; police later intercepted the letter.
Police obtained a warrant to search Said’s cell phone; searches produced internet history (searches about head injuries, names, hospital, obituaries) and other data.
DNA testing produced several samples excluding Said, and other samples that the analyst described as "uninterpretable."
A jury convicted Said of second‑degree murder and use of a weapon; he appealed challenging: admissibility of statements and the letter, the phone search warrant, exclusion of evidence about the victim’s mental health/drug/alcohol use, limits on impeaching a witness (Nuri), and admission of "uninterpretable" DNA testimony.

Issues

Issue	Said's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Admissibility of April 20 and June 5 statements and April 29 letter	Said invoked Miranda at start of Apr 20; all subsequent statements and the letter are fruit of that violation	State conceded some Apr 20 questioning was improper but argued error was harmless; letter discovery was attenuated; June 5 waiver was voluntary	Court: admission of post‑invocation Apr 20 statements was error but harmless; statements after his 21‑minute invocation suppressed; letter admissible (attenuation); June 5 statements admissible and any error harmless
2. Search warrant for cell phone: probable cause	Affidavit omitted material impeachment info about key informant (Nuri) and relied on generalities about phones	Affidavit contained specific facts (video, letter, communications) tying Said to investigation; minor omissions not material; affidavit + second affidavit supported warrant	Court: affidavit established probable cause; warrant sufficiently particular (inadvertent drafting error cured by affidavit); no suppression
3. Exclusion of evidence re Khamis’ mental health, alcoholism, and prescriptions	Such history and prescriptions were highly probative of aggressor status or alternative cause of death	Court permitted limited inquiry into drug effects but excluded broad psychiatric/alcohol history without nexus to behavior at incident	Court: trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusions were proper under relevance/403 and did not deny right to present a defense
4. Limits on impeachment of witness Nuri (Facebook misrepresentations; pending charge)	Cross‑examination about Facebook lies and pending charge would show bias/untruthfulness	Trial court allowed some credibility impeachment (conviction for dishonesty) but excluded Facebook allegations and pending charge absent proof of inducement/bias	Court: no abuse of discretion under Neb. Evid. §27‑608(2); Confrontation right not violated—excluded lines were not sufficiently probative
5. Admission of DNA analyst testimony that some samples were "uninterpretable"	Uninterpretable/inconclusive DNA is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial (Johnson)	State used such testimony on cross to rebut defense witness’s selective presentation; doctrine of specific contradiction/opening the door applies	Court: admission was within discretion to avoid misleading impression; limiting instruction mitigated prejudice; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings and right to silence/counsel)
Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) (custody analysis for interviews of incarcerated persons)
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010) (interruption of Miranda‑custody effect over time)
State v. Guzman, 305 Neb. 376 (Neb. 2020) (standard of review for voluntariness/Miranda issues)
State v. Stelly, 304 Neb. 33 (Neb. 2019) (motion to suppress Fourth Amendment; warrant particularity)
State v. Goynes, 303 Neb. 129 (Neb. 2019) (cell phone warrant particularity and probable cause analysis)
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (Neb. 2015) (inconclusive DNA results generally irrelevant and prejudicial)
State v. Carpenter, 293 Neb. 860 (Neb. 2016) (opening‑the‑door/specific contradiction doctrine)
State v. Pettit, 227 Neb. 218 (Neb. 1987) (continuation‑of‑questioning factors after invocation)
State v. DeJong, 287 Neb. 864 (Neb. 2014) (harmless error doctrine for improperly admitted statements)