Jackson v. Denno hearing in Nebraska

2022Webb argues his August 5 motions are not governed by § 29-1207(4)(a), because they were not “motions to suppress evidence, motions to quash the indictment or information, demurrers and pleas in abatement, and motions for a change of venue.” Webb’s argument focuses on § 29-1207(4)(a)’s phrase “including, but not limited to” and argues that absent authority that the Legislature’s inclusion of the language “but not limited to” in reference to “other proceedings concerning the defendant” in contrast to its use of just the word “including” with respect to pretrial motions to the defendant shows an

2022Webb argues his August 5 motions are not governed by § 29-1207(4)(a), because they were not “motions to suppress evidence, motions to quash the indictment or information, demurrers and pleas in abatement, and motions for a change of venue.” Webb’s argument focuses on § 29-1207(4)(a)’s phrase “including, but not limited to” and argues that absent authority that the Legislature’s inclusion of the language “but not limited to” in reference to “other proceedings concerning the defendant” in contrast to its use of just the word “including” with respect to pretrial motions to the defendant shows an

2022The question for purposes of Jackson v. Denno is whether an admission or confession was voluntary, not whether it was true, so questions going to the substance of a statement generally fall outside the scope of a Jackson v. Denno hearing. 57 On this record, and considering the totality of the circum- stances, we find no clear error in the district court’s conclusions that Miller’s subsequent statements were voluntarily made and were not the product of any coercion, promise, or inducement, 56 See, generally, State v. Martin, 243 Neb. 368 , 500 N.W.2d 512 (1993) (referring to statement subject t

2022The question for purposes of Jackson v. Denno is whether an admission or confession was voluntary, not whether it was true, so questions going to the substance of a statement generally fall outside the scope of a Jackson v. Denno hearing. 57 On this record, and considering the totality of the circum- stances, we find no clear error in the district court’s conclusions that Miller’s subsequent statements were voluntarily made and were not the product of any coercion, promise, or inducement, 56 See, generally, State v. Martin, 243 Neb. 368 , 500 N.W.2d 512 (1993) (referring to statement subject t

2022Webb argues his August 5 motions are not governed by § 29-1207(4)(a), because they were not “motions to suppress evidence, motions to quash the indictment or information, demurrers and pleas in abatement, and motions for a change of venue.” Webb’s argument focuses on § 29-1207(4)(a)’s phrase “including, but not limited to” and argues that absent authority that the Legislature’s inclusion of the language “but not limited to” in reference to “other proceedings concerning the defendant” in contrast to its use of just the word “including” with respect to pretrial motions to the defendant shows an

2022Webb argues his August 5 motions are not governed by § 29-1207(4)(a), because they were not “motions to suppress evidence, motions to quash the indictment or information, demurrers and pleas in abatement, and motions for a change of venue.” Webb’s argument focuses on § 29-1207(4)(a)’s phrase “including, but not limited to” and argues that absent authority that the Legislature’s inclusion of the language “but not limited to” in reference to “other proceedings concerning the defendant” in contrast to its use of just the word “including” with respect to pretrial motions to the defendant shows an

2022MILLER Cite as 312 Neb. 17 direct or indirect.

2022Webb argues his August 5 motions are not governed by § 29-1207(4)(a), because they were not “motions to suppress evidence, motions to quash the indictment or information, demurrers and pleas in abatement, and motions for a change of venue.” Webb’s argument focuses on § 29-1207(4)(a)’s phrase “including, but not limited to” and argues that absent authority that the Legislature’s inclusion of the language “but not limited to” in reference to “other proceedings concerning the defendant” in contrast to its use of just the word “including” with respect to pretrial motions to the defendant shows an

2022Webb argues his August 5 motions are not governed by § 29-1207(4)(a), because they were not “motions to suppress evidence, motions to quash the indictment or information, demurrers and pleas in abatement, and motions for a change of venue.” Webb’s argument focuses on § 29-1207(4)(a)’s phrase “including, but not limited to” and argues that absent authority that the Legislature’s inclusion of the language “but not limited to” in reference to “other proceedings concerning the defendant” in contrast to its use of just the word “including” with respect to pretrial motions to the defendant shows an

2022The question for purposes of Jackson v. Denno is whether an admission or confession was voluntary, not whether it was true, so questions going to the substance of a statement generally fall outside the scope of a Jackson v. Denno hearing. 57 On this record, and considering the totality of the circum- stances, we find no clear error in the district court’s conclusions that Miller’s subsequent statements were voluntarily made and were not the product of any coercion, promise, or inducement, 56 See, generally, State v. Martin, 243 Neb. 368 , 500 N.W.2d 512 (1993) (referring to statement subject t

2022The question for purposes of Jackson v. Denno is whether an admission or confession was voluntary, not whether it was true, so questions going to the substance of a statement generally fall outside the scope of a Jackson v. Denno hearing. 57 On this record, and considering the totality of the circum- stances, we find no clear error in the district court’s conclusions that Miller’s subsequent statements were voluntarily made and were not the product of any coercion, promise, or inducement, 56 See, generally, State v. Martin, 243 Neb. 368 , 500 N.W.2d 512 (1993) (referring to statement subject t

2022See, Lovvorn, supra note 6 ; State v. Feldhacker, 267 Neb. 145 , 672 N.W.2d 627 (2004). - 701 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. WEBB Cite as 311 Neb. 694 a motion for disclosure of intention to use evidence of prior convictions for impeachment; a motion to allow Webb to wear civilian clothing when in the presence of the jury; a request for a Jackson v. Denno hearing 14; a motion to remove Webb’s restraints when in the presence of the jury; a motion for seques- tration of the witnesses; and a motion in limine.

2022See, Lovvorn, supra note 6 ; State v. Feldhacker, 267 Neb. 145 , 672 N.W.2d 627 (2004). - 701 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. WEBB Cite as 311 Neb. 694 a motion for disclosure of intention to use evidence of prior convictions for impeachment; a motion to allow Webb to wear civilian clothing when in the presence of the jury; a request for a Jackson v. Denno hearing 14; a motion to remove Webb’s restraints when in the presence of the jury; a motion for seques- tration of the witnesses; and a motion in limine.

2022See, Lovvorn, supra note 6 ; State v. Feldhacker, 267 Neb. 145 , 672 N.W.2d 627 (2004). - 701 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. WEBB Cite as 311 Neb. 694 a motion for disclosure of intention to use evidence of prior convictions for impeachment; a motion to allow Webb to wear civilian clothing when in the presence of the jury; a request for a Jackson v. Denno hearing 14; a motion to remove Webb’s restraints when in the presence of the jury; a motion for seques- tration of the witnesses; and a motion in limine.

2022Webb argues his August 5 motions are not governed by § 29-1207(4)(a), because they were not “motions to suppress evidence, motions to quash the indictment or information, demurrers and pleas in abatement, and motions for a change of venue.” Webb’s argument focuses on § 29-1207(4)(a)’s phrase “including, but not limited to” and argues that absent authority that the Legislature’s inclusion of the language “but not limited to” in reference to “other proceedings concerning the defendant” in contrast to its use of just the word “including” with respect to pretrial motions to the defendant shows an

2022Webb argues his August 5 motions are not governed by § 29-1207(4)(a), because they were not “motions to suppress evidence, motions to quash the indictment or information, demurrers and pleas in abatement, and motions for a change of venue.” Webb’s argument focuses on § 29-1207(4)(a)’s phrase “including, but not limited to” and argues that absent authority that the Legislature’s inclusion of the language “but not limited to” in reference to “other proceedings concerning the defendant” in contrast to its use of just the word “including” with respect to pretrial motions to the defendant shows an

2021Khalaf not only argues that his counsel’s performance was deficient, but that he was prejudiced as a result of the deficiency “because whether or not he was entitled to relief on any of these errors was not determined on their merit.” Brief for appellant at 16. -8- Generally, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2021Khalaf not only argues that his counsel’s performance was deficient, but that he was prejudiced as a result of the deficiency “because whether or not he was entitled to relief on any of these errors was not determined on their merit.” Brief for appellant at 16. -8- Generally, to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2003We do, however, withdraw from our earlier opinion all of the section, including syllabus points 8 through 11, designated as “(d) Feldhacker’s Praecipe for Transcripts,” id, at 617, 657 N.W.2d at 664 , and replace that portion of the analysis *873 discussion with the following section, because while the result is the same, the opinion requires clarification: (d) Feldhacker’s Praecipe for Transcripts On April 25, 2001, Feldhacker’s counsel filed a praecipe for a transcript of the Jackson v. Denno hearing in the district court and a praecipe for a transcript of the county court’s preliminary hear

2003Loftin v. State, 180 Ga.App. 613 , 349 S.E.2d 777 (1986).

2003Loftin v. State, 180 Ga. App. 613 , 349 S.E.2d 111 (1986).

1999ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Dreimanis states in his petition for further review that the Court of Appeals erred (1) “when it determined that the decision in State v. Osborn. 250 Neb. 57 (1996) only applied to motions to suppress,” (2) “when it determined that the district court’s order implicitly contained specific findings as to the purpose for which the testimony was admissible,” (3) “when it determined that [Dreimanis] was not entitled to a Jackson v. Denno hearing with regard to his statement made to police in a prior act because he had pled guilty in that case and therefore waived all defenses,”

1974At the very end of the confession on Monday he stated as with relief: “Pm just glad it’s over.” The Jackson v. Denno hearing afforded to the defendant “a fair hearing and a reliable determination on the issue of voluntariness, a determination uninfluenced by the truth or falsity of the confession.” Jackson v. Denno, supra, 376-377 ; Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 , 92 S. Ct. 619 , 30 L.

1974At the very end of the confession on Monday he stated as with relief: “Pm just glad it’s over.” The Jackson v. Denno hearing afforded to the defendant “a fair hearing and a reliable determination on the issue of voluntariness, a determination uninfluenced by the truth or falsity of the confession.” Jackson v. Denno, supra, 376-377 ; Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 , 92 S. Ct. 619 , 30 L.