State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773

On Nov. 16, 2017, Beverley Bauermeister was found dead in the trailer she shared with Alan E. Stack; autopsy showed extensive blunt force head trauma and two penetrating (pellet) wounds.
A Crosman .177 pellet gun was recovered from Stack’s bedroom with apparent blood/brain matter; DNA testing strongly linked Bauermeister’s blood to the gun and to stains on Stack’s clothing and shoe; touch DNA on the gun included Stack’s profile.
Stack’s laptop contained internet searches (Nov. 7–10) about whether a .177 pellet could penetrate a skull, methods of suicide, and human body decomposition; Bauermeister’s phone showed no outgoing activity after Nov. 8.
Following his arrest Stack made jailhouse calls and admissions indicating heavy drinking, memory gaps/blackouts for several days, and some acknowledgment of being at the scene after the death; Stack claimed he did not remember killing Bauermeister.
At a bench trial Stack moved for dismissal at close of State’s case (denied), presented an insanity defense (experts conflicted), and the court convicted him of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon (acquitted on abuse charge).
The district court rejected the insanity defense and sentenced Stack to consecutive terms of 80 years to life (murder) and 40–50 years (deadly weapon). The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stack)	Held
1. Sufficiency / directed verdict	Evidence (circumstantial DNA, gun, searches, statements) proves Stack intentionally killed Bauermeister; any rational trier could convict.	Directed verdict should have been granted; circumstantial evidence is equivocal and favors acquittal.	Denied waiver on directed verdict; viewing evidence in State's favor, convictions supported.
2. Proper degree of homicide (murder v. sudden quarrel manslaughter)	Evidence shows intentional killing without sudden quarrel provocation; murder proper.	Multiple blows and alleged provocation support sudden quarrel manslaughter instead.	No evidence of legally sufficient sudden quarrel; second degree murder upheld.
3. Insanity defense	Insanity not proven: State experts found no neurocognitive disorder; voluntary intoxication and conflicting expert opinions undermine claim.	Stack’s expert: mild neurocognitive disorder + alcoholic blackout rendered him unable to form intent/understand nature/consequences.	District court resolved expert conflict; insufficient proof of legal insanity; verdict stands.
4. Excessive sentence	Sentences within statutory limits and reflect violent nature/circumstances; court considered relevant factors.	Sentences excessive given age, health, limited record; effectively no parole.	No abuse of discretion; sentences affirmed.

State v. Martinez, 306 Neb. 516, 946 N.W.2d 445 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Buchanan, 210 Neb. 20, 312 N.W.2d 684 (abandoning accused’s rule for circumstantial evidence)
State v. Pierce, 248 Neb. 536, 537 N.W.2d 323 (discussed historic accused’s rule)
State v. Olbricht, 294 Neb. 974, 885 N.W.2d 699 (rejection of accused’s rule reaffirmed)
State v. Smith, 284 Neb. 636, 822 N.W.2d 401 (definition and requirements for sudden quarrel / manslaughter)
State v. Bigelow, 303 Neb. 729, 931 N.W.2d 842 (insanity defense framework under Nebraska law)