State v. Trice, 286 Neb. 183

Background

At an after-hours party in Norfolk, NE, Timothy Warren was stabbed and later died from internal injuries; police collected knives (including one belonging to Trice) and inconclusive DNA results.
Witness accounts conflicted: a brawl broke out primarily between Warren and Kevin Bardwell; some witnesses placed De’Aris Trice in the fight and two witnesses testified they saw Trice stab Warren; others placed Trice aside.
Trice voluntarily returned from Chicago, was tried, and the jury was instructed with a then-correct step instruction: if the State proved intentional killing, jurors must convict of second-degree murder and only consider manslaughter if the State failed to prove those elements.
The jury convicted Trice of second-degree murder and he was sentenced to 40 years to life; the case was pending on appeal when the Nebraska Supreme Court decided State v. Smith.
In Smith, the court overruled prior precedent and held that an intentional killing committed upon a sudden quarrel can be manslaughter, rendering the step instruction erroneous where it prevents consideration of intentional-but-provoked killings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court's step instruction (requiring jurors to convict of murder if intent to kill found and only then consider manslaughter) was erroneous under Smith	State urged instruction was correct at trial and jury rationally rejected sudden quarrel defense	Trice argued Smith made the instruction legally incorrect and prejudicial because jury never could consider sudden quarrel manslaughter	Court held plain error: Smith applied retroactively and the instruction was erroneous because evidence (though slight) could support sudden quarrel manslaughter
Whether the instructional error was prejudicial (necessitating reversal)	State argued any error was harmless because jury likely rejected sudden quarrel theory	Trice argued prejudice because jury was never permitted to consider manslaughter despite some evidence supporting it	Court held error prejudicial: a reasonable jury could have concluded intent resulted from sudden quarrel, so reversal required
Whether Double Jeopardy bars retrial given erroneous instruction	State argued sufficient evidence supported the murder verdict, so retrial permitted	Trice argued retrial barred if evidence insufficient absent error	Court held double jeopardy does not bar retrial: totality of admitted evidence (including two eyewitnesses to stabbing and alleged admissions) was sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict
Retroactivity of Smith	State implied Smith should not apply to pending cases; Trice argued Smith applies retroactively	Trice argued similarly situated defendants must be treated equally	Court held new rule in Smith was a clear break and applied retroactively to cases not yet final

Key Cases Cited

State v. Smith, 282 Neb. 720, 806 N.W.2d 383 (Neb. 2011) (overruled precedent and held intentional killing on a sudden quarrel can be manslaughter)
State v. Jones, 245 Neb. 821, 515 N.W.2d 654 (Neb. 1994) (prior rule that an intentional killing could never be sudden quarrel manslaughter)
State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 583 N.W.2d 31 (Neb. 1998) (overruled in part by Smith; discussed malice and murder elements)
State v. Sandoval, 280 Neb. 309, 788 N.W.2d 172 (Neb. 2010) (jury presumed to follow instructions)
State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55, 815 N.W.2d 897 (Neb. 2012) (Double Jeopardy analysis regarding sufficiency of evidence for retrial)