State v. Watt, 285 Neb. 647

Background

Adrian Lessley was killed and Jason Marion was wounded during a November 10, 2010 shooting on Patricia Marion’s Omaha porch.
Kevin Watt was charged with first degree murder, first degree assault, two counts of use of a deadly weapon, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person.
Witnesses described Watt arriving in a newer light-colored SUV, approaching the porch with a rifle, and firing multiple shots during a confrontation on the porch.
Forensic evidence showed rifle-type cartridges and live rounds; the gun used was not recovered, but five cartridge cases were traced to a single weapon and multiple firearms could have fired them.
The jury convicted Watt of all charged offenses; the district court sentenced him to life imprisonment plus additional terms, with credit for time served set at 448 days but later challenged on appeal.
On direct appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the credit for time served, applying it against the assault sentence rather than the life sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for murder and assault	Watt contends insufficient evidence shows he fired the fatal shots.	State argues the jury could reasonably infer Watt fired deliberately with premeditated malice.	Evidence sufficient to support murder and assault convictions.
Jury instructions and plain error	Watt claims instruction errors (including step instructions and manslaughter inclusion) prejudiced the verdict.	State argues any errors were preserved or harmless beyond reasonable doubt or not plain error.	No reversible error; instructions, read as a whole, correctly stated the law and were not plain error.
Prosecutorial misconduct	Watt asserts prosecutorial misconduct during closing and witness intimidation harmed fairness.	State contends no improper conduct occurred and any remarks were not prejudicial.	No plain prosecutorial misconduct established; arguments did not prejudice the trial to a due-process level.
Ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal	Watt claims multiple deficiencies in trial counsel prejudiced his defense.	State contends record support for some claims is insufficient; several claims lack prejudice or are not reviewable on direct appeal.	Record supports some claims as meritless; others are not resolvable on direct appeal; remaining claims deemed without merit.
Credit for time served	Watt challenges how time served was credited against sentences.	State contends credit was properly calculated and within statutory guidelines.	Credit must be applied against the assault sentence rather than the life sentence; judgments modified accordingly.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Reinpold, 284 Neb. 950 (2013) (standard for sufficiency and appellate duty to independently review law)
State v. Kibbee, 284 Neb. 72 (2012) (jury instructions and review standards)
State v. Nolan, 283 Neb. 50 (2012) (premeditation and deliberation standards)
State v. Smith, 282 Neb. 720 (2011) (post-Smith concerns with step instructions and manslaughter distinctions)
State v. Alarcon-Chavez, 284 Neb. 322 (2012) (evaluating post-Smith instruction issues)
State v. Sepulveda, 278 Neb. 972 (2009) (unintentional felonies and use-of-firearm doctrine)
State v. Ramirez, 283 Neb. 618 (2011) (ineffective assistance considerations and Strickland framework)
State v. Pereira, 284 Neb. 982 (2013) (credit for time served on consecutive sentences)
State v. Sing, 275 Neb. 391 (2008) (credit and sentencing considerations)