State v. Tyler, 918 N.W.2d 306

Background

On Sept. 3, 2012, Delayno Wright was shot outside Halo Ultra Lounge in Omaha and later died; police tied a tan/gold SUV (a Jeep Commander linked to Tyler’s girlfriend) and shell casings to the scene.
Witness Ronald King identified Tyler as the shooter; King later received immunity for his interview and testified at trial that he saw Tyler fire multiple shots while wearing a brown striped shirt. Jelani Johnson also testified and admitted he had lied initially to police; he testified he had no plea agreement at trial.
Investigators recovered photos of Tyler wearing a brown striped shirt (from a wedding the day before), cell‑phone evidence, and that Tyler had purchased an FN Five‑seveN pistol months earlier.
A jury convicted Tyler of first‑degree premeditated murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony; sentences were affirmed on direct appeal (State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920, 870 N.W.2d 119 (2015)).
In postconviction, Tyler alleged prosecutorial misconduct (failure to disclose a plea/deal, allowing false testimony about a letter, introducing new facts and bolstering witnesses in closing) and ineffective assistance of trial/appellate counsel for not correcting/appealing those matters.
The district court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding claims procedurally barred, insufficiently pled, or refuted by the record; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Tyler's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Prosecutor misled jury about Johnson’s deal / Brady violation	Prosecutor told jury Johnson would not get a deal but Johnson’s charge was later dismissed; failure to disclose violated Brady	Closing accurately reflected testimony that Johnson had no deal at trial and hoped cooperation might help; later disposition doesn’t make closing false	No misconduct; no Brady violation alleged properly because Tyler did not show an undisclosed deal existed at trial; claim rejected
Failure to correct known false testimony about letter	Prosecutor learned off‑record that Johnson, not King, authored a letter but did not correct King’s testimony	Issue known to defense at trial; record shows jury had means to evaluate King’s credibility; claim could have been raised on direct appeal	Procedurally barred and, on merits, not shown to be prejudicial; claim denied
Prosecutor introduced new/impermissible facts in closing (re: why King got immunity)	Prosecutor argued King got immunity because he was at scene and failed to report it — not in evidence; impermissible fact‑pleading in summation	Inferences about why immunity was given were reasonable from testimony (King’s presence, role, immunity demand); rebuttal to defense argument	Claim could have been resolved on direct appeal and is procedurally barred; remarks were permissible inferences
Ineffective assistance for failing to object/appeal prosecutorial misconduct	Trial/appellate counsel failed to object to or appeal prosecutorial misconduct and failed to correct known false testimony, cumulatively depriving fair trial	Counsel cross‑examined King as to credibility, argued points in closing, and objections would have lacked merit; no Strickland prejudice shown	No ineffective assistance: objections would likely have failed; Tyler did not show reasonable probability of a different outcome

Key Cases Cited

State v. Tyler, 291 Neb. 920 (affirming convictions) (prior direct‑appeal decision in the same case)
State v. Haynes, 299 Neb. 249 (2018) (postconviction procedural‑bar standards)
State v. Dubray, 294 Neb. 937 (2016) (summation/inference and prosecutorial conduct principles)
State v. Johnson, 298 Neb. 491 (2017) (standards for assessing prosecutorial misconduct in closing)
State v. Torres, 295 Neb. 830 (2017) (postconviction is not a substitute for direct appeal; procedural bar analysis)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose favorable evidence)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (Brady and impeachment evidence framework)
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence and deals)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part ineffective‑assistance standard)
U.S. v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2012) (context matters for rebuttal comments in closing)