cumulative error (Nebraska) · Go Syfert
← Nebraska issues

cumulative error in Nebraska

12 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 8 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Vazquezgreen
neb · 2025 · cited in 4 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2025–2026
2 sentences

2026See, e.g., State v. Vazquez, 319 Neb. 192, 216 , 21 N.W.3d 615 , 646 (2025); State v. Corral, 318 Neb. 940, 994 , 20 N.W.3d 372 , 414 (2025); State v. Dap, 315 Neb. 466, 480 , 997 N.W.2d 363 , 375 (2023).

2026Recently, in State v. Vazquez, 319 Neb. 192 , 21 N.W.3d 615 (2025), we observed that we have not expressly held that meritorious claims of ineffective assis- tance of counsel are properly included in a cumulative error analysis.

24
Wamsley v. Stategreen
neb · 1960 · cited in 2 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2002–2013
2 sentences

2013Cumulative Error Smith argues that the sum of all the errors in his trial requires reversal, even if any single error alone does not. (a) Legal Principles [34] We have recognized the doctrine of cumulative error in the context of a criminal jury trial, stating that “while one or more trial errors might not, standing alone, constitute prejudi- cial error, ‘their cumulative effect was to deprive the defend­ ant of his constitutional right to a public trial by an impartial jury.’” Hradecky v. State, 264 Neb. 771, 781 , 652 N.W.2d 277, 286 (2002) (quoting Wamsley v. State, 171 Neb. 197 , 106 N.W.2

2013Cumulative Error Smith argues that the sum of all the errors in his trial requires reversal, even if any single error alone does not. (a) Legal Principles [34] We have recognized the doctrine of cumulative error in the context of a criminal jury trial, stating that “while one or more trial errors might not, standing alone, constitute prejudi- cial error, ‘their cumulative effect was to deprive the defend­ ant of his constitutional right to a public trial by an impartial jury.’” Hradecky v. State, 264 Neb. 771, 781 , 652 N.W.2d 277, 286 (2002) (quoting Wamsley v. State, 171 Neb. 197 , 106 N.W.2

12
State v. Andersgreen
neb · 2022 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022In State v. Anders, 311 Neb. 958, 986 , 977 N.W.2d 234 , 256 (2022), the Nebraska Supreme Court stated: We have recognized the doctrine of cumulative error in the context of a criminal jury trial.

2022In State v. Anders, 311 Neb. 958, 986 , 977 N.W.2d 234 , 256 (2022), the Nebraska Supreme Court stated: We have recognized the doctrine of cumulative error in the context of a criminal jury trial.

11
Hradecky v. Stategreen
neb · 2002 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013Cumulative Error Smith argues that the sum of all the errors in his trial requires reversal, even if any single error alone does not. (a) Legal Principles [34] We have recognized the doctrine of cumulative error in the context of a criminal jury trial, stating that “while one or more trial errors might not, standing alone, constitute prejudi- cial error, ‘their cumulative effect was to deprive the defend­ ant of his constitutional right to a public trial by an impartial jury.’” Hradecky v. State, 264 Neb. 771, 781 , 652 N.W.2d 277, 286 (2002) (quoting Wamsley v. State, 171 Neb. 197 , 106 N.W.2

2013Cumulative Error Smith argues that the sum of all the errors in his trial requires reversal, even if any single error alone does not. (a) Legal Principles [34] We have recognized the doctrine of cumulative error in the context of a criminal jury trial, stating that “while one or more trial errors might not, standing alone, constitute prejudi- cial error, ‘their cumulative effect was to deprive the defend­ ant of his constitutional right to a public trial by an impartial jury.’” Hradecky v. State, 264 Neb. 771, 781 , 652 N.W.2d 277, 286 (2002) (quoting Wamsley v. State, 171 Neb. 197 , 106 N.W.2

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Dap green
neb · 2023
2 sentences

2026But to the extent that Reeves makes a claim for relief under the cumulative error doctrine, see State v. Dap, 315 Neb. 466 , 997 N.W.2d 363 (2023), he cannot prevail.

2023DAP Cite as 315 Neb. 466 ineffective assistance of counsel—which either are insuffi- ciently pled or are unable to be addressed on direct appeal— cannot form the basis for a claim of cumulative error. 33 The cumulative error doctrine does not apply here.

52023–2026
State v. Smith green
neb · 2016
2 sentences

2021Accumulation of Errors Figures next argues that the aggregated errors in Figures’ case warrants reversal. (a) Standard of Review [30] Whether cumulative error deprived a criminal defendant of his or her Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury presents a question of law to be reviewed de novo. 48 46 See State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773 , 950 N.W.2d 611 (2020). 47 See Scott, supra note 45. 48 State v. Smith, 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 (2016). - 827 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FIGURES Cite as 308 Neb. 801 (b) Discussion Because we already det

2017State v. Smith, 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 (2016).

22017–2021
State v. Corral green
neb · 2025
1 sentence

2026See, e.g., State v. Vazquez, 319 Neb. 192, 216 , 21 N.W.3d 615 , 646 (2025); State v. Corral, 318 Neb. 940, 994 , 20 N.W.3d 372 , 414 (2025); State v. Dap, 315 Neb. 466, 480 , 997 N.W.2d 363 , 375 (2023).

12026–2026
State v. Stack green
neb · 2020
2 sentences

2021Accumulation of Errors Figures next argues that the aggregated errors in Figures’ case warrants reversal. (a) Standard of Review [30] Whether cumulative error deprived a criminal defendant of his or her Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury presents a question of law to be reviewed de novo. 48 46 See State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773 , 950 N.W.2d 611 (2020). 47 See Scott, supra note 45. 48 State v. Smith, 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 (2016). - 827 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FIGURES Cite as 308 Neb. 801 (b) Discussion Because we already det

2021Accumulation of Errors Figures next argues that the aggregated errors in Figures’ case warrants reversal. (a) Standard of Review [30] Whether cumulative error deprived a criminal defendant of his or her Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury presents a question of law to be reviewed de novo. 48 46 See State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773 , 950 N.W.2d 611 (2020). 47 See Scott, supra note 45. 48 State v. Smith, 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 (2016). - 827 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FIGURES Cite as 308 Neb. 801 (b) Discussion Because we already det

12021–2021
State v. Figures green
neb · 2021
1 sentence

2021Accumulation of Errors Figures next argues that the aggregated errors in Figures’ case warrants reversal. (a) Standard of Review [30] Whether cumulative error deprived a criminal defendant of his or her Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury presents a question of law to be reviewed de novo. 48 46 See State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773 , 950 N.W.2d 611 (2020). 47 See Scott, supra note 45. 48 State v. Smith, 292 Neb. 434 , 873 N.W.2d 169 (2016). - 827 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FIGURES Cite as 308 Neb. 801 (b) Discussion Because we already det

12021–2021
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2016INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

2016INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S. Ct. 2052 , 80 L.

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (5) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1206 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1205 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OH 763 (1984–2026) WA 493 (1981–2026) CA 282 (1961–2026) TN 276 (2001–2026) KS 247 (1994–2026) NM 222 (1967–2026) UT 194 (1986–2026) ID 183 (1987–2026) CO 143 (1983–2026) MS 136 (1991–2026) TX 132 (1948–2026) GA 106 (1984–2026) NV 99 (1994–2026) FL 98 (1985–2025) KY 89 (2012–2026) OK 76 (1988–2026) NJ 75 (1989–2026) WV 66 (1976–2025) MT 55 (1976–2026) AL 43 (1980–2022) IL 42 (1982–2026) MI 35 (1995–2026) AZ 35 (1966–2026) WY 29 (1991–2025) AR 29 (1994–2025) MN 23 (1989–2026) PA 22 (1979–2026) SC 22 (2005–2026) OR 17 (2000–2026) MA 12 (1996–2025) CT 12 (1980–2021) NE 12 (2002–2026) DE 11 (2014–2025) NC 10 (2014–2026) IA 10 (2017–2025) LA 8 (2009–2024) VI 6 (2012–2013) MD 5 (1999–2022) WI 4 (2003–2022) SD 3 (2019–2026) ME 3 (2013–2024) ND 2 (2013–2013) IN 2 (2009–2018) VT 2 (2017–2018)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check