State v. Stack, 950 N.W.2d 611

Victim Beverley Bauermeister was found dead in her home on November 16, 2017, with extensive blunt‑force head trauma and two penetrating (pellet) wounds; death estimated to have occurred around November 10.
A .177 Crosman pellet gun was recovered from Stack’s bedroom; the gun had suspected blood/brain matter and touch DNA linking both Stack and the victim to the weapon.
Forensic testing showed extremely high probability that blood on Stack’s clothing, shoe, the pellet gun, and the victim’s phone belonged to Bauermeister; brown hair strands were found in the victim’s hand and nearby carpet.
Stack’s laptop contained internet searches (Nov. 7–12) about pellet guns penetrating skulls, suicide methods, and body decomposition; Stack later admitted some of these searches and acknowledged heavy drinking and memory gaps.
Defense presented a forensic psychiatrist who diagnosed alcohol‑induced mild neurocognitive disorder and opined Stack experienced an alcoholic blackout and lacked requisite intent/insanity; State experts disputed that diagnosis.
Bench trial: district court convicted Stack of second‑degree murder and use of a deadly weapon (acquitted on abuse charge), rejected the insanity defense, and imposed consecutive terms of 80 years–life and 40–50 years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence / directed verdict	Evidence (DNA, gun, hair, searches, admissions) shows Stack intentionally killed victim; verdict should stand	Directed verdict should have been granted; circumstantial evidence insufficient or ambiguous	Directed‑verdict claim waived by presenting defense evidence; viewing all evidence in light most favorable to State, convictions supported
Degree of homicide: murder vs sudden‑quarrel manslaughter	Evidence shows intentional killing without sudden quarrel; second‑degree murder appropriate	Multiple blows and alleged provocation support sudden quarrel manslaughter instead	No evidence of legally cognizable sudden quarrel; second‑degree murder supported
Insanity defense	Even if blackout played a role, State contends voluntary intoxication excludes insanity; experts’ conflict is for factfinder	Stack argues combined neurocognitive disorder plus intoxication caused inability to know nature/consequences	District court reasonably credited State experts; insufficient proof of legal insanity; verdict on insanity will not be disturbed
Sentence excessive	—	Sentences are disproportionate given age, health, limited record; effectively no parole	Sentences within statutory limits and court considered mitigating/aggravating factors; no abuse of discretion

State v. Martinez, 306 Neb. 516, 946 N.W.2d 445 (standard of review for sufficiency; appellate court does not reweigh evidence)
State v. Buchanan, 210 Neb. 20, 312 N.W.2d 684 (abandoned accused’s rule; treat circumstantial evidence like direct evidence)
State v. Pierce, 248 Neb. 536, 537 N.W.2d 323 (discussion of the accused’s rule in circumstantial evidence jurisprudence)
State v. Olbricht, 294 Neb. 974, 885 N.W.2d 699 (reaffirmed rejection of accused’s rule)
State v. Smith, 284 Neb. 636, 822 N.W.2d 401 (defines sudden‑quarrel manslaughter vs second‑degree murder)
State v. Vann, 306 Neb. 91, 944 N.W.2d 503 (defendant waives directed‑verdict challenge by presenting defense evidence)
State v. France, 279 Neb. 49, 776 N.W.2d 510 (verdict on insanity will not be disturbed absent insufficient evidence)
State v. Bigelow, 303 Neb. 729, 931 N.W.2d 842 (insanity defense, if established, is a complete defense)
State v. Leahy, 301 Neb. 228, 917 N.W.2d 895 (appellate review standard for sentencing within statutory limits)