State v. Wofford, 298 Neb. 412

Background

July 30, 2015 shooting: occupants of a dark blue Oldsmobile were shot at; a silver Saturn (registered to Lafferrell Matthews) was identified as the shooter’s vehicle; Matthews, Nico Wofford, and Dominique Hairston were connected to the Saturn.
Matthews testified at the consolidated trial that Wofford sat in the rear passenger side and he heard shots from the back seat; Hairston was seen leaning out and firing in Matthews’ account.
Wofford and Hairston were charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm and use of a weapon to commit a felony; the State moved to consolidate the prosecutions and the court granted consolidation over Wofford’s objection.
During voir dire, the prosecutor used a peremptory strike on the sole African‑American venire member; defense raised a Batson challenge and the court accepted the prosecutor’s race‑neutral explanation.
Surveillance video of the shooting was admitted into evidence and the jury requested to rewatch it during deliberations; the court provided a laptop for that purpose; jurors later viewed a mirrored version of the video.
Jury convicted Wofford on both counts; court denied a new‑trial motion and sentenced Wofford to consecutive 20–30 year terms. Wofford appealed several rulings and the sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Consolidation of trials	Wofford: consolidation prejudiced him (guilt by association, inconsistent defenses, testimony from Matthews)	State: offenses were factually related; evidence against both would be admissible separately; jury instructions mitigate prejudice	Court: no abuse of discretion; consolidation proper; no shown prejudice
Batson challenge to peremptory strike	Wofford: strike of sole African‑American juror was racially motivated	State: struck for race‑neutral reason — juror’s religious statements suggesting inability to judge individually	Court: prosecutor’s reason facially race neutral; trial court not clearly erroneous in finding no purposeful discrimination
Jury access to surveillance video during deliberations	Wofford: error to allow unsupervised, unfettered access; mirrored/reversed viewing was improper	State: video was nontestimonial exhibit and substantive evidence; court has broad discretion to provide exhibits for deliberations	Court: no abuse of discretion in providing the video (device choice acceptable); submission of nontestimonial exhibits permitted
Sufficiency of evidence and sentence excessiveness	Wofford: evidence insufficient (no forensic ID, no eyewitness ID of shooter by victims); sentence excessive	State: Matthews’ testimony and corroborating evidence (video, casings) sufficient; sentences within statutory limits and court considered factors	Court: evidence sufficient; sentences within statutory ranges and not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (Equal Protection prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes)
State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (standard for consolidation/joinder and prejudice)
State v. Clifton, 296 Neb. 135 (Batson framework; appellate review standards)
State v. Vandever, 287 Neb. 807 (trial court discretion on rehearing nontestimonial evidence during deliberations)
State v. Mendez‑Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 (sufficiency of evidence standard in criminal cases)
State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557 (appellate review of sentences within statutory limits)
State v. Henry, 292 Neb. 834 (distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial exhibits for jury review)
State v. Thomas, 262 Neb. 985 (requirements for challenging venire composition)