State v. Wofford, 298 Neb. 412

On July 30, 2015, shots were fired from a silver Saturn into a dark blue Oldsmobile; one occupant was wounded. The Saturn stopped nearby and three men fled.
Lafferrell Matthews (owner/driver of the Saturn) later admitted driving and testified Matthews, Wofford (rear passenger), and Hairston (front passenger) were in the Saturn; Matthews testified he heard shots from the back seat and saw Hairston fire.
Wofford and Hairston were jointly tried (consolidated) on charges of unlawful discharge of a firearm and use of a weapon to commit a felony; Matthews (charged separately) testified at the consolidated trial.
During voir dire, the prosecutor used a peremptory strike on the only African-American venire member; defense raised a Batson challenge which the court denied after the prosecutor gave a race-neutral, religious-belief-based explanation.
During deliberations the jury was given a laptop to view the surveillance video (nontestimonial exhibit); afterward jurors viewed a mirrored/reversed version of the video. Defense moved for a new trial; the court denied the motion.
Jury convicted Wofford on both counts. The court sentenced him to consecutive 20–30 year terms. Wofford appealed, asserting errors in consolidation, Batson ruling, jury access to the video, insufficiency of evidence, and excessive sentences.

Issue	Wofford's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Consolidation of trials	Consolidation prejudiced Wofford (guilt by association; inconsistent defenses; prejudicial testimony from Matthews)	Offenses were part of same transaction; evidence against each would be admissible separately; jury instructions can prevent association prejudice	No abuse of discretion; consolidation proper and not prejudicial
Batson challenge to peremptory strike	Strike of sole African-American juror was racial discrimination / pretext	Prosecutor gave race-neutral reason: juror’s religious statements suggested he could not judge individually	Prosecutor’s reason facially race-neutral; district court not clearly erroneous in finding no purposeful discrimination
Jury access to surveillance video during deliberations	Unsupervised access and subsequent viewing of mirrored video were irregular and constituted jury misconduct requiring new trial	Video was nontestimonial substantive evidence; trial court has broad discretion to submit such exhibits to jury; device used was unobjectionable	No abuse of discretion in providing video (nontestimonial); assignment of error rejected
Sufficiency of evidence	State lacked physical/forensic proof tying Wofford to shooting; witnesses not credible	Matthews’ testimony and video corroboration sufficed; credibility for jury to decide	Evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to prosecution; convictions affirmed

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (constitutional prohibition on race-based peremptory challenges)
State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (standards for consolidation/joinder and prejudice burden)
State v. Clifton, 296 Neb. 135 (Batson framework; appellate review of prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation)
State v. Vandever, 287 Neb. 807 (trial court discretion to allow jury review of nontestimonial exhibits)
State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 (standard for sufficiency-of-the-evidence review)