State v. Tyler, 301 Neb. 365

Background

Avery R. Tyler was convicted by jury of premeditated first-degree murder and use of a firearm in connection with the September 3, 2012, killing of Delayno Wright; he received life plus 20–30 years consecutive.
Key evidence: eyewitness identifications tying a man in a brown striped shirt to the scene, surveillance of an SUV leaving the lot, shell casings matched to an FN Five-seveN (a pistol Tyler had purchased), and cell-phone/location data; Ronald King and Jelani Johnson were important State witnesses.
At trial King testified he saw Tyler fire gunshots and had received immunity for his cooperation; King also referenced a letter he purportedly authored. Johnson testified he initially lied to police, was charged as an accessory, and denied having a plea agreement at trial (hoping cooperation would reduce his charge).
During closing the prosecutor argued inferences about why King received immunity and emphasized that prosecutors ‘‘don’t give deals to liars,’’ distinguishing King (given immunity) from Johnson (charged and allegedly not given a deal at trial).
On direct appeal this court affirmed Tyler’s convictions; Tyler later filed a postconviction motion alleging prosecutorial misconduct (false testimony, undisclosed plea/deal, improper closing argument, witness bolstering) and ineffective assistance of trial/appellate counsel for not correcting/raising these issues.
The district court denied postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing, finding many claims procedurally barred or insufficiently pleaded; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirms.

Issues

Issue	Tyler's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Prosecutor failed to disclose plea/deal with Johnson and misled jury in closing	Prosecutor told jury Johnson had no deal but later dismissed/reduced his charge; Brady violation	Record shows Johnson had no deal at trial and testified he expected possible benefit; prosecutor’s comments were correct in context	No Brady violation; remarks not misleading or prejudicial; claim fails
Prosecutor allowed/failed to correct false testimony about letter authorship	Prosecutor knew King falsely testified he wrote a letter; State failed to correct it	Issue was known at trial/off-record; jury was exposed to other credibility evidence; claim could have been raised on direct appeal	Procedurally barred; insufficient to warrant relief
Prosecutor introduced new/impermissible facts in closing (reason King got immunity)	Prosecutor asserted facts not in evidence (King failed to report crime) to justify immunity	Prosecutor’s inference was reasonable from testimony (King’s proximity, conduct, immunity request); record sufficient to review	Procedurally barred on postconviction because could be resolved on direct appeal
Ineffective assistance for failing to object/appeal to alleged prosecutorial misconduct	Trial counsel should have objected to, corrected, or appealed improper statements and false testimony; cumulative error prejudiced Tyler	Counsel extensively cross‑examined and challenged credibility; remarks were reasonable inferences; any objection would lack merit	No deficient performance or prejudice shown; claim fails; no evidentiary hearing warranted

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose favorable exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
State v. Dubray, 294 Neb. 937 (2016) (standards for postconviction pleadings and prosecutorial misconduct review)
State v. Torres, 295 Neb. 830 (2017) (postconviction relief cannot substitute for direct appeal; procedural bar principles)
State v. Johnson, 298 Neb. 491 (2017) (framework for assessing prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments)
U.S. v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2012) (context matters for rebuttal argument; prosecutor’s remarks as commentary on evidence may not be misconduct)