State v. Trotter, 299 Neb. 392

In January 2015, two men (Marcel Lovejoy and Dexter Joseph) were shot to death at an Omaha apartment party; Trotter (age 16 at the events) was charged with two counts of first‑degree murder and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.
Three eyewitnesses at trial identified Trotter as the shooter; defense argued mistaken identity and pointed to DeAndre Hines as the actual shooter.
Defense sought to admit two blurred cellphone photographs from Hines’ phone showing Hines wearing a gray hooded sweatshirt and holding a predominantly silver-and-black handgun.
The district court excluded the photos under Neb. Evid. R. 403 as minimally relevant and potentially confusing/prejudicial (also noting gang signs in one photo and differences between gun description and photos).
Trotter was sentenced to consecutive terms: 40–60 years for each murder and 5–10 years for each weapon use, totaling 90–140 years; he contended this was a de facto life sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment per Miller v. Alabama.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held the exclusion of the photographs was not an abuse of discretion and the aggregate sentence did not violate the protections required for juvenile homicide offenders under Miller.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Hines’ photographs	Photos show Hines wearing clothing and holding a gun like the shooter, supporting misidentification defense	Photos were marginally relevant, cumulative, blurry, showed a different-colored gun and gang signs; admission would mislead/confuse jury	Exclusion was not an abuse of discretion under Neb. Evid. R. 403; any minimal relevance was outweighed by risk of prejudice/confusion; harmless if any error
Sentence as functional life sentence (Eighth Amendment)	Combined 90–140 year term is the functional equivalent of life imprisonment for a juvenile, violating Miller protections	Court considered juvenile factors and imposed statutory minimums consecutively to account for two victims; Miller protections satisfied	Aggregate sentence did not violate Miller; sentencing process and result were lawful; conviction and sentences affirmed

State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557 (2017) (evidentiary/admissibility standards cited)
State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367 (2017) (Eighth Amendment / juvenile sentencing discussion)
State v. Castaneda, 295 Neb. 547 (2017) (rejected claim that long aggregated juvenile sentence was de facto life; explained Miller compliance)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (juvenile homicide sentencing requires consideration of youth and attendant characteristics)