State v. Wofford
298 Neb. 412
| Neb. | 2017Background
- On July 30, 2015, occupants of a Saturn allegedly fired into an Oldsmobile; one occupant of the Oldsmobile was shot. Police linked the Saturn to registered owner Lafferrell Matthews, who later admitted he was driving and identified Nico Wofford and Dominique Hairston as passengers.
- 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 prosecutions and the district court granted consolidation over Wofford’s objection.
- During voir dire the State peremptorily struck the sole African-American veniremember after he initially stated religious beliefs would prevent him from judging individually; Wofford raised a Batson challenge which the court denied.
- The State presented Matthews’ testimony and surveillance video showing the Saturn passing the Oldsmobile as shots were fired; the video (a nontestimonial exhibit) was admitted without objection.
- During deliberations the jury requested the video; the court provided a laptop so jurors could replay it. Post-verdict, defense learned jurors had viewed a mirrored/reversed version of the video and argued that was extraneous prejudicial information.
- The jury convicted Wofford on both counts; the court sentenced him to consecutive terms of 20–30 years on each count. Wofford appealed, challenging consolidation, the Batson ruling, jury access to the video, sufficiency of the evidence, and sentence length.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wofford) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidation of trials | Consolidation prejudiced Wofford (guilt by association; inconsistent defenses; testimonial evidence from codefendant Matthews) | Offenses were part of the same transaction; evidence against both would be admissible separately; jury instructions cure association risk | No abuse of discretion; consolidation proper and not prejudicial |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike | Strike of sole African-American veniremember was racially motivated (venire underrepresentative; juror language issues showed nonbias) | Prosecutor gave race-neutral reason: juror’s stated religious reluctance to judge individually could impair deliberations | Prosecutor’s reason was facially race neutral; trial court’s finding not clearly erroneous; Batson denied |
| Jury unsupervised access to surveillance video during deliberations | Allowing jurors unsupervised access (and use of laptop) led to jurors viewing a mirrored video—extraneous prejudicial information; requires new trial | The surveillance recording was nontestimonial substantive evidence; trial court may furnish nontestimonial exhibits for deliberation; device choice was neutral | No abuse of discretion in allowing jury to replay the nontestimonial video on a laptop; access during deliberations permissible |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State lacked physical/forensic evidence tying Wofford to shooting; key witnesses (Matthews, Hairston) unreliable | Matthews’ eyewitness testimony plus video and shell casing evidence supported convictions; credibility and conflicts for jury to resolve | Evidence sufficient: viewed in light most favorable to prosecution a rational jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt |
| Sentence excessive | Court failed to adequately weigh mitigating factors (no prior felonies, employment, family ties) | Sentences were midrange, within statutory limits; court considered mitigating and aggravating factors including risk to reoffend | No abuse of discretion; sentences within statutory limits and appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (Equal Protection prohibits peremptory strikes based solely on race; three-step Batson inquiry)
- State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (2015) (standards for consolidation and prejudice analysis under § 29-2002)
- State v. Clifton, 296 Neb. 135 (2017) (de novo review of facial race-neutrality and clear-error review of purposeful discrimination in Batson context)
- State v. Vandever, 287 Neb. 807 (2014) (trial court discretion to allow jury review of nontestimonial exhibits during deliberations)
- State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 (2017) (sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard: appellate court views evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Jones, 297 Neb. 557 (2017) (appellate review of within-statutory sentences for abuse of discretion)