State v. Stelly
304 Neb. 33
| Neb. | 2019Background
- On Jan. 11, 2017, D’Angelo Branch was found fatally shot; investigators recovered a silver PT Cruiser nearby, 11 spent 9mm casings, an LG cell phone in the street, and a ZTE phone in the victim’s pocket.
- Forensic testing tied the LG phone and a hat seized from Stelly’s apartment to Stelly and produced DNA linking Branch to blood on the hat; Stelly’s fingerprint was found in the PT Cruiser.
- Police obtained a warrant to search a cell phone, but the warrant and parts of the affidavit misidentified the target device (listing the ZTE rather than the LG); officers searched the LG phone and later obtained a corrected warrant.
- At trial the State introduced eight graphic crime‑scene and autopsy photos over Stelly’s objections, and admitted exhibit 103 despite an apparent omission in the formal offer; defense counsel did not object to certain testimony about the victim’s personal attributes.
- The 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; Stelly appealed, raising suppression, photographic evidence, and 18 ineffective‑assistance claims.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held the affidavit cured the scrivener’s error in the warrant, upheld admission of the photos, rejected several ineffective‑assistance claims as meritless or refuted, and left other ineffective‑assistance claims for postconviction review where the record was insufficient on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/particularity of first search warrant (misidentified phone) | Warrant invalid because it named the ZTE, not the LG; evidence from LG should be suppressed | Misidentification was a scrivener’s error cured by the affidavit accompanying the warrant; description sufficiently particular | Warrant valid: affidavit cured the inadvertent error; search of LG phone constitutional |
| Admission of graphic/crime‑scene and autopsy photographs | Photos were overly gruesome and cumulative; prejudicial under Neb. Evid. R. 403 | Photos were relevant to identity, condition of the body, wound location/extent, and malice; not substantially cumulative or unfairly prejudicial | Photos admissible: probative value outweighed prejudicial effect; no abuse of discretion |
| Receipt of exhibit 103 despite omission from formal offer | Trial counsel should have objected to court receiving 103 when State failed to formally offer it | Counsel knew (from sidebar) the omission was inadvertent and that the State and court intended to cure it; objecting would have changed nothing | Not ineffective assistance: failure to make a pointless objection not prejudicial |
| Failure to object to victim‑character testimony and multiple investigation failures (18 claims total) | Counsel deficient for not objecting to testimony/argument about victim’s kindness/mental capacity and for failing to investigate many lines (ShotSpotter, videos, experts, records, chain of custody) | Many of the victim‑character references were partly relevant (explaining why victim was walking); trial strategy plausible; several investigation claims insufficiently pleaded or refuted by the record; others cannot be resolved on direct appeal | Mixed: failure to object to victim‑character testimony not prejudicial; several investigation claims refuted or inadequately pled; multiple claims left unresolved and appropriate for postconviction review where record can be developed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kleinberg, 228 Neb. 128, 421 N.W.2d 450 (1988) (affidavit accompanying warrant may cure inadvertent scrivener’s error in warrant)
- State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208, 854 N.W.2d 584 (2014) (gruesome photographs admissible if relevant to controverted issues; R.403 balancing)
- State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763, 848 N.W.2d 571 (2014) (requirements for stating ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Iromuanya, 282 Neb. 798, 806 N.W.2d 404 (2011) (prosecutorial improprieties and assessment of prejudice in context of jury instructions and evidentiary strength)