State v. Stelly, 932 N.W.2d 857

Background:

At 2:37 a.m. on Jan. 11, 2017, ShotSpotter alerted police; D’Angelo Branch was found dead on a sidewalk with multiple gunshot wounds to the head and body.
An LG cell phone was found in the street ~10–15 feet from Branch; a ZTE phone was found in Branch’s pocket. Officers obtained and executed a warrant to search a phone, but the warrant/portions of the affidavit mistakenly identified the ZTE while the affidavit narrative described the LG.
Forensic testing: DNA from blood on a hat seized from Stelly’s apartment and from the LG phone linked to Stelly and Branch; Stelly’s fingerprint found on the PT Cruiser registered to a friend; PT Cruiser had wheel-well damage consistent with witness descriptions.
Stelly moved to suppress evidence from the LG phone, arguing the warrant was not sufficiently particular; the district court denied the motion, finding the affidavit cured the scrivener’s error.
At trial the court admitted eight crime-scene/autopsy photographs over defense objection as relevant to identification, wound extent, and malice; defense also raised many claims of ineffective assistance of counsel (18 discrete allegations).
Jury convicted Stelly of first-degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal.

Issues:

Issue	State's Argument	Stelly's Argument	Held
Validity of search warrant / search of LG phone	Warrant and affidavit read together show officers sought the LG phone; affidavit cured scrivener’s error	Warrant misidentified the phone (ZTE vs LG) so search was not sufficiently particular and should be suppressed	Affidavit cured the scrivener’s error; description was sufficiently particular; suppression denied
Admission of gruesome / potentially cumulative photos	Photos were relevant to ID, condition/location of wounds, and malice; different angles/points in investigation justified multiple photos	Photos were overly graphic and some were cumulative and prejudicial	Trial court did not abuse discretion: probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; admission affirmed
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to receipt of exhibit 103	State: omission was inadvertent, defense knew exhibit would be offered and court would receive it; any formal objection would have been futile	Stelly: counsel should have objected because the State never formally offered exhibit 103	Record shows counsel knew sidebar resolution and exhibit would be received; no prejudice; claim fails
Ineffective assistance — failure to object to victim-character testimony and broad failure-to-investigate claims	State: some testimony (why victim was walking) was relevant; many investigative complaints require postconviction factfilling; some defense decisions were tactical	Stelly: counsel failed to object to irrelevant sympathy-evoking testimony and failed to investigate many leads/experts/witnesses	Court: some claims refuted by the record; others insufficiently pleaded; many require further fact development — not resolvable on direct appeal; overall no relief and convictions affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Kleinberg, 228 Neb. 128 (Neb. 1988) (affidavit accompanying a warrant can cure an inadvertent scrivener’s error in the warrant)
State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 (Neb. 2014) (gruesome photographs admissible if proper foundation; court must balance probative value against unfair prejudice)
State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 (Neb. 2014) (requirements for alleging ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Munoz, 303 Neb. 69 (Neb. 2019) (appellate framework for evaluating Strickland claims)
State v. Iromuanya, 282 Neb. 798 (Neb. 2011) (analysis of prosecutorial remarks and prejudice in context of failure to object)
State v. Botts, 299 Neb. 806 (Neb. 2018) (standard of review for suppression rulings)