State v. Wofford, 298 Neb. 412

Background

July 30, 2015 shooting: a Saturn passed and fired into an Oldsmobile; one occupant was injured. Police found three men fled from the Saturn; shell casings showed shots from two guns.
Lafferrell Matthews (owner/driver) later admitted he was driving; Matthews testified Wofford sat in the rear passenger side and that shots came from the back seat; Hairston was identified as a front-seat shooter by Matthews.
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 their trials and the court granted consolidation over Wofford’s objection.
During voir dire the State used a peremptory strike on the only African-American veniremember; defendants raised a Batson challenge which the trial court denied after the prosecutor gave a race-neutral reason (concerns over the juror’s religious statements about judging).
The jury viewed a surveillance video at trial; during deliberations the court provided a laptop so jurors could rewatch the video; postverdict, defense learned jurors had viewed a mirrored/reversed image of the video and claimed irregularity; motion for new trial denied.
Jury convicted Wofford on both counts; court sentenced him to consecutive 20–30 year terms (within statutory limits). Wofford appealed, asserting errors on consolidation, Batson, jury access to video, insufficiency of evidence, and excessiveness of sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wofford)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Consolidation of trials	Consolidation prejudiced Wofford (guilt by association; inconsistent defenses; Matthews’ testimony unfairly implicated him)	Offenses were factually related; evidence against both would be admissible separately; jury instruction mitigated prejudice	No abuse of discretion; consolidation proper and not prejudicial
Batson challenge to peremptory strike	Strike of sole African‑American veniremember was racially motivated; prosecutor’s reasons pretextual (language/misunderstanding)	Prosecutor gave race‑neutral reason: concern juror’s religious statements showed reluctance to judge individually	Prosecutor’s reason facially neutral; trial court’s credibility finding not clearly erroneous — Batson denied
Jury access to surveillance video during deliberations	Providing laptop and allowing unsupervised review (which produced a mirrored image) was improper and led to prejudice	Video was nontestimonial substantive evidence; trial court has broad discretion to send such exhibits to jury; device chosen was reasonable	No abuse of discretion in permitting jury to view nontestimonial video during deliberations
Sufficiency of evidence & sentence excessiveness	Insufficient proof Wofford fired shots (no physical/forensic ID; no eyewitness ID); sentence excessive given mitigators	Matthews’ testimony plus video and other evidence could support conviction; sentences within statutory range and court considered factors	Evidence sufficient for convictions; sentences within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (2015) (standard for consolidation/joinder and prejudice burden)
State v. Clifton, 296 Neb. 135 (2017) (Batson review: facial neutrality legal question; deference to trial court credibility findings)
State v. Vandever, 287 Neb. 807 (2014) (trial court discretion to permit jury review of nontestimonial exhibits)
State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 (2017) (sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard in criminal appeals)
State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557 (2017) (appellate review of within‑statute sentences)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory strikes may not be based solely on race)
State v. Henry, 292 Neb. 834 (2016) (distinction between testimonial and nontestimonial materials for juror review)
State v. Olbricht, 294 Neb. 974 (2016) (preservation/waiver principles regarding motions for dismissal and sufficiency challenges)
State v. Stone, 902 N.W.2d 197 (2017) (factors appellate court reviews when a within‑range sentence is challenged)
State v. Jackson, 899 N.W.2d 215 (2017) (sentencing court’s subjective judgment and consideration of listed factors)