Williams test in Nebraska

2018State v. Rogers , 297 Neb. 265 , 899 N.W.2d 626 (2017). (b) Arrest of Williams Before engaging in our analysis of the issues presented regarding Williams' motions to suppress, we must pause to note that our analysis is hampered by the brevity and absence of more particularized findings made by the district court in its order overruling Williams' motion. "[D]istrict courts shall articulate in writing or from the bench their general findings when denying or granting a motion to suppress." State v. Osborn , 250 Neb. 57 , 67, 547 N.W.2d 139 , 145 (1996).

2018State v. Rogers , 297 Neb. 265 , 899 N.W.2d 626 (2017). (b) Arrest of Williams Before engaging in our analysis of the issues presented regarding Williams' motions to suppress, we must pause to note that our analysis is hampered by the brevity and absence of more particularized findings made by the district court in its order overruling Williams' motion. "[D]istrict courts shall articulate in writing or from the bench their general findings when denying or granting a motion to suppress." State v. Osborn , 250 Neb. 57 , 67, 547 N.W.2d 139 , 145 (1996).

2018Finding probable cause existed to support Williams' arrest, we find that the district court did not err by denying Williams' motion to suppress. (c) Pre- Miranda Statements Williams argues that the court erred in not suppressing statements he made after being handcuffed and placed in the police cruiser, because they were elicited in violation of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2018Finding probable cause existed to support Williams' arrest, we find that the district court did not err by denying Williams' motion to suppress. (c) Pre- Miranda Statements Williams argues that the court erred in not suppressing statements he made after being handcuffed and placed in the police cruiser, because they were elicited in violation of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

2001The Court further stated that the elements approach “ ‘promotes judicial economy by providing a clearer rule of decision and by permitting appellate courts to decide whether jury instructions were wrongly refused without reviewing the entire evidentiary record for nuances of inference.’” Id., quoting Schmuck v. United States, supra. In State v. Becerra, 253 Neb. 653, 664 , 573 N.W.2d 397, 405 (1998), we stated that “[i]n determining whether an offense is a lesser-included one, a court looks initially not to the evidence in a particular case, but, rather, to the elements of the criminal offense

2001The Court further stated that the elements approach “ ‘promotes judicial economy by providing a clearer rule of decision and by permitting appellate courts to decide whether jury instructions were wrongly refused without reviewing the entire evidentiary record for nuances of inference.’” Id., quoting Schmuck v. United States, supra. In State v. Becerra, 253 Neb. 653, 664 , 573 N.W.2d 397, 405 (1998), we stated that “[i]n determining whether an offense is a lesser-included one, a court looks initially not to the evidence in a particular case, but, rather, to the elements of the criminal offense

2024CUMULATIVE ERROR Williams next assigns the cumulative weight of these purported errors necessitates a new trial. “[A]lthough one or more trial errors might not, standing alone, constitute prejudicial error, their cumulative effect may be to deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to a public trial by an impartial jury.” State v. Smith, 292 Neb. at 470 , 873 N.W.2d at 199.

2021F.D.I.C., 224 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2000)). - 597 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports WILLIAMS v. STATE Cite as 310 Neb. 588 Sequence of Decisions. [9] Finally, Williams claims that the district court made a reversible procedural error because its order addressed the State’s motion to dismiss before addressing Williams’ motion to amend the complaint.

2021Before the hearing, Williams requested leave to amend the complaint to “allege additional facts further establishing . . . subject matter” jurisdiction of his claims and to “articulate additional facts establishing the ele- ments of [Williams’] negligence claim in greater detail.” In its written order, referring to the intentional tort exception in the STCA, § 81-8,219(4), the district court determined that Williams’ negligence claim was barred by sovereign immunity because it arose from “multiple layers of assault/battery.” Next, the district court denied Williams’ motion for leave to amend h

2021Because this presents 2 Moser v. State, 307 Neb. 18 , 948 N.W.2d 194 (2020). 3 Id. 4 Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020). - 594 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports WILLIAMS v. STATE Cite as 310 Neb. 588 a question of subject matter jurisdiction, we address it as a threshold issue. 5 [5,6] Through the STCA, the Nebraska Legislature has enacted a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity with respect to some, but not all, types of tort claims. 6 The STCA contains specific exceptions to the waiver of sover- eign immunity.

2021Because this presents 2 Moser v. State, 307 Neb. 18 , 948 N.W.2d 194 (2020). 3 Id. 4 Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020). - 594 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports WILLIAMS v. STATE Cite as 310 Neb. 588 a question of subject matter jurisdiction, we address it as a threshold issue. 5 [5,6] Through the STCA, the Nebraska Legislature has enacted a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity with respect to some, but not all, types of tort claims. 6 The STCA contains specific exceptions to the waiver of sover- eign immunity.

2021Because this presents 2 Moser v. State, 307 Neb. 18 , 948 N.W.2d 194 (2020). 3 Id. 4 Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020). - 594 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports WILLIAMS v. STATE Cite as 310 Neb. 588 a question of subject matter jurisdiction, we address it as a threshold issue. 5 [5,6] Through the STCA, the Nebraska Legislature has enacted a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity with respect to some, but not all, types of tort claims. 6 The STCA contains specific exceptions to the waiver of sover- eign immunity.

2021Because this presents 2 Moser v. State, 307 Neb. 18 , 948 N.W.2d 194 (2020). 3 Id. 4 Chaney v. Evnen, 307 Neb. 512 , 949 N.W.2d 761 (2020). - 594 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports WILLIAMS v. STATE Cite as 310 Neb. 588 a question of subject matter jurisdiction, we address it as a threshold issue. 5 [5,6] Through the STCA, the Nebraska Legislature has enacted a limited waiver of the State’s sovereign immunity with respect to some, but not all, types of tort claims. 6 The STCA contains specific exceptions to the waiver of sover- eign immunity.

2021F.D.I.C., 224 F.3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2000)). - 597 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310 Nebraska Reports WILLIAMS v. STATE Cite as 310 Neb. 588 Sequence of Decisions. [9] Finally, Williams claims that the district court made a reversible procedural error because its order addressed the State’s motion to dismiss before addressing Williams’ motion to amend the complaint.

2020ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Williams makes the following assignments of error: (1) The district court erred in allowing the State to recall K.M.’s mother, (2) the district court erred in overruling Williams’ motion to dismiss, (3) there was insufficient evidence to find Williams guilty of negligent child abuse resulting in seri- ous bodily injury, (4) there was insufficient evidence to find Williams guilty of negligent child abuse, and (5) the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. - 269 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. WILLIAMS Ci

2018That technician testified that Williams’ test result was .134 of a gram of alcohol per 210 liters of breath, which comports with exhibit 105, a copy of the Omaha Police Department’s - 483 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 26 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. WILLIAMS Cite as 26 Neb.

2018We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by overruling Williams’ motion to strike the juror for cause. [19,20] Through the use of peremptory challenges or chal- lenges for cause, parties can secure an impartial jury and avoid - 484 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 26 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. WILLIAMS Cite as 26 Neb.

2017Williams further contended that appellate counsel - 583 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. WILLIAMS Cite as 295 Neb. 575 failed to (1) withdraw from the case prior to the initial post- conviction proceeding and (2) file Williams’ brief in the appeal of the initial postconviction proceeding.

2017As such, Williams is not entitled to relief. (ii) Failure to Present and Preserve Claim That Two Photographs Were Received Over Trial Counsel’s Objections Williams argues that his direct appeal attorney failed to assign as error on appeal Williams’ claim that two gruesome photographs of the bodies of Burgess and a dog were not - 604 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. WILLIAMS Cite as 295 Neb. 575 relevant and were unduly prejudicial.

2001State v. Wright, 261 Neb. 277 , 622 N.W.2d 676 (2001) (holding that while test is stated in conjunctive in Williams, it is two-step test with first step being to analyze elements of crimes at issue).

2001State v. Wright, 261 Neb. 277 , 622 N.W.2d 676 (2001) (holding that while test is stated in conjunctive in Williams, it is two-step test with first step being to analyze elements of crimes at issue).

2001State v. Al-Zubaidy, supra. In Al-Zubaidy , we quoted a portion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 , 109 S. Ct. 1443 , 103 L.

2001State v. Al-Zubaidy, supra. In Al-Zubaidy , we quoted a portion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 , 109 S. Ct. 1443 , 103 L.

2001See, e.g., State v. Capek, 234 Neb. 214 , 450 N.W.2d 212 (1990) (death deemed manslaughter caused while knowingly, intentionally, or negligently causing minor child to be placed in situation that endangered her life or to be cruelly punished); State v. Kistenmacher, 231 Neb. 318 , 436 N.W.2d 168 (1989) (death deemed manslaughter caused while in commission of third degree assault); State v. White, 217 Neb. 783 , 351 N.W.2d 83 (1984) (death deemed manslaughter caused while in commission of child abuse).

2001See, e.g., State v. Capek, 234 Neb. 214 , 450 N.W.2d 212 (1990) (death deemed manslaughter caused while knowingly, intentionally, or negligently causing minor child to be placed in situation that endangered her life or to be cruelly punished); State v. Kistenmacher, 231 Neb. 318 , 436 N.W.2d 168 (1989) (death deemed manslaughter caused while in commission of third degree assault); State v. White, 217 Neb. 783 , 351 N.W.2d 83 (1984) (death deemed manslaughter caused while in commission of child abuse).

2001See, e.g., State v. Capek, 234 Neb. 214 , 450 N.W.2d 212 (1990) (death deemed manslaughter caused while knowingly, intentionally, or negligently causing minor child to be placed in situation that endangered her life or to be cruelly punished); State v. Kistenmacher, 231 Neb. 318 , 436 N.W.2d 168 (1989) (death deemed manslaughter caused while in commission of third degree assault); State v. White, 217 Neb. 783 , 351 N.W.2d 83 (1984) (death deemed manslaughter caused while in commission of child abuse).

2001See, e.g., State v. Capek, 234 Neb. 214 , 450 N.W.2d 212 (1990) (death deemed manslaughter caused while knowingly, intentionally, or negligently causing minor child to be placed in situation that endangered her life or to be cruelly punished); State v. Kistenmacher, 231 Neb. 318 , 436 N.W.2d 168 (1989) (death deemed manslaughter caused while in commission of third degree assault); State v. White, 217 Neb. 783 , 351 N.W.2d 83 (1984) (death deemed manslaughter caused while in commission of child abuse).

2001We have held in State v. Malone, 4 Neb.

2001We have held in State v. Malone, 4 Neb.

1998The Capps court reasoned: “Whether Dr. Nalbor’s office practice included having patients sign a release has no bearing on whether Dr. Manhart breached the standard of care in his treatment of appellant.” Id. at 21 , 458 N.W.2d at 746 .

1998The Capps court reasoned: “Whether Dr. Nalbor’s office practice included having patients sign a release has no bearing on whether Dr. Manhart breached the standard of care in his treatment of appellant.” Id. at 21 , 458 N.W.2d at 746 .