S-15-0192, State v. Robert W. Grant (appellant)
Douglas County, Hon. Gregory M. Schatz
Attorneys: Douglas J. Peterson and Erin E. Tangeman (Attorney General's Office); Thomas C. Riley and John J. Jedlicka (Public Defender's Office) (Appellant)
Criminal: first degree murder; use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony
Proceedings below: After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted and sentenced to a term of life and a consecutive term of 50 to 50 years.
Issue: The district court erred in 1) allowing Appellant's statements at the bus station, cruiser, jail, and OPD into evidence in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and Jackson v. Denno, 378 Neb. 368 (1964), 2) allowing Alexus Carter to testify that Trudy McKee had no relationship with Appellant during the July 2013 move to Omaha as well as the first week after and Carter's assessment of their arguments, 3) allowing Detective Hinsley to testify to Alexus Carter's demeanor when he was questioning her, 4) Allowing Elaine Adler to testify to Alexus Carter's hearsay statement, 5) allowing the State to ask witnesses Hinsley and Vacaro their conclusions regarding Appellant's demeanor at OPD and admitting Exhibit 206, 6) receiving Exhibits 230 through 236, Exhibits 239-41 and Exhibit 245, 7) allowing Detective Queen's testimony over defense objection, 8) receiving into evidence the maroon tank top and pants over defense objection, 9) allowing Tech Brady to testify over defense objection, 10) denying defense motion for new trial on the sixth day of trial after Appellant struck a deputy, 11) not allowing defense counsel to call Todd Copper as a witness and in giving Copper standing to object in the proceeding, 12) denying the motion for new trial on the seventh day of trial after Appellant hit defense counsel, 13) denying defense counsel's request to have Appellant evaluated by a psychiatrist concerning whether the stress of trial caused Appellant to lose his competency, 14) giving jury instructions for intentional manslaughter which included terms 'without malice,' and 15) finding there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant, especially given the evidence that was lost, the manner in which it was collected, not collected, and not tested.