861 N.W.2d 367
Neb.2015Background
- Defendant Derrick U. Stricklin and co-defendant Terrell E. Newman were tried jointly for two first-degree murders and related weapons and attempted manslaughter charges stemming from a December 2, 2012 shooting during a planned drug transaction at Morales’ auto body shop; two victims died of gunshot wounds to the head.
- Key eyewitness Jose Herrera‑Gutierrez identified Stricklin and Newman as the shooters and described events in the office, including guns, bindings, and shots heard while a plastic bag covered victims’ heads.
- The State introduced corroborating cell‑phone records (including Newman’s records and exhibit 288 showing tower locations) tying defendants to Morales’ shop. Trials were consolidated over Stricklin’s motion to sever.
- The court excluded multi‑level hearsay: statements made by Morales to a confidential informant and relayed to police; the court found neither statement‑against‑interest nor residual‑exception criteria satisfied.
- The district court limited cross‑examination of the principal witness concerning prior drug activity and the details of a 2002 conviction consistent with Neb. Evid. R. 609 and 608(2).
- Post‑verdict, a juror affidavit disclosed a phone call during deliberations to a brother who knew the defendants; the court held there was juror misconduct but no prejudice and denied a new trial and further reopening of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidation / Severance of trials | State: defendants’ prosecutions were properly joinable because offenses arose from the same transactions | Stricklin: joinder prejudiced him because evidence (Newman’s phone records, exhibit 288) would be inadmissible against him alone | Affirmed consolidation; evidence would have been admissible against Stricklin in a separate trial, so no prejudice |
| Admission of confidential informant statements (multi‑level hearsay) | Stricklin: informant’s testimony would show third‑party motive and support defense; exclusion violated right to present a defense | State: statements are double hearsay and not covered by statement‑against‑interest or residual exception | Exclusion affirmed: statements not self‑inculpatory; residual‑exception factors (trustworthiness, probative value, notice) not met |
| Scope of cross‑examination of Herrera‑Gutierrez | Stricklin: should probe gang ties, informant knowledge, and specifics of prior drug conviction to impeach credibility | State: limits necessary under rules 608/609 and for relevance; detailed conviction circumstances inadmissible | Limitation affirmed: prior conviction may be shown but not detailed; 608(2) limited to non‑conviction acts; trial court’s discretion upheld |
| Juror misconduct and motion for new trial | Stricklin: juror’s phone call and undisclosed family link to defendants prejudiced verdict; court should have granted new trial and reopened evidence | State: extraneous information was minimal/neutral and limited to one juror; no prejudice to average juror | New trial denied: misconduct found but no prejudice; extraneous info was neutral/acquaintance and would not sway an average juror; excluded juror statements revealing deliberative processes under Neb. Evid. R. 606(2) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Foster, 286 Neb. 826 (consolidation and joinder principles)
- State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363 (limits on demonstrative exhibits and need for limiting instruction)
- State v. Phillips, 286 Neb. 974 (application of residual hearsay exception analysis)
- State v. Epp, 278 Neb. 683 (factors for residual hearsay exception)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (defendant’s right to present a complete defense)