State v. Valeriano, A-17-211

Valeriano, a jailed inmate, and fellow inmate Timothy Trujillo fought in the Scotts Bluff County jail F‑Pod; Trujillo suffered visible injuries later medically treated.
Surveillance footage (soundless DVD) shows Valeriano follow Trujillo into Trujillo’s cell, stand over Trujillo, and repeatedly stomp at him; Valeriano exits the cell in underwear shortly before staff arrive.
Jail staff testified to observing Trujillo’s injuries and seeing him wash blood; medical testimony established a laceration requiring stitches.
The State charged Valeriano with assault by a confined person (Class IIIA felony) under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑932(1).
At trial Valeriano requested a self‑defense jury instruction; the court denied it, the jury convicted, and the court sentenced him to 24–36 months’ imprisonment.
Valeriano appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence, (2) erroneous refusal to instruct on self‑defense, and (3) excessive sentence. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove bodily injury element of assault by a confined person	Valeriano: circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove he caused Trujillo’s injuries	State: surveillance plus witness testimony sufficiently show Valeriano stomped and injured Trujillo	Affirmed — viewing evidence in State’s favor a rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Refusal to give self‑defense instruction	Valeriano: evidence of his own injuries supports a claim of self‑defense	State: no evidence Trujillo posed an immediate unlawful threat; Valeriano entered cell voluntarily	Affirmed — no legally cognizable self‑defense claim because Valeriano unjustifiably placed himself in harm’s way
Excessiveness of sentence	Valeriano: 24–36 months is excessive	State: sentence within statutory range and based on PSR showing violent history and high recidivism risk	Affirmed — sentence within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion

State v. Mendez‑Osorio, 297 Neb. 520, 900 N.W.2d 776 (standard for sufficiency review)
State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276, 900 N.W.2d 454 (appellate review does not reweigh evidence)
State v. Olbricht, 294 Neb. 974, 885 N.W.2d 699 (circumstantial evidence can establish facts)
State v. Alford, 278 Neb. 818, 774 N.W.2d 394 (circumstantial evidence sufficient for confined‑person assault)
State v. Iromuanya, 272 Neb. 178, 719 N.W.2d 263 (when to instruct on self‑defense)
State v. Urbano, 256 Neb. 194, 589 N.W.2d 144 (no instruction if evidence does not support self‑defense)
State v. Kinser, 252 Neb. 600, 567 N.W.2d 287 (self‑defense instruction required if evidence supports it)
State v. Marshall, 253 Neb. 676, 573 N.W.2d 406 (no self‑defense where defendant placed himself in harm’s way)
State v. Rogers, 297 Neb. 265, 899 N.W.2d 626 (standard for reviewing within‑range sentences)
State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537, 894 N.W.2d 331 (sentencing is subjective and discretionary)
State v. Loding, 296 Neb. 670, 895 N.W.2d 669 (wide discretion in sentencing)
State v. Taylor, 12 Neb. App. 58, 666 N.W.2d 753 (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
State v. Russell, 243 Neb. 106, 497 N.W.2d 393 (circumstantial evidence sufficiency)
State v. Smith, 284 Neb. 636, 822 N.W.2d 401 (reasonable belief required for self‑defense)