9 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2024 3 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
O'Grady v. Stategreen2 sentences2023However, it was long held that evidence of intoxication was relevant to a jury’s determina- tion of whether a defendant had a specific intent such that a crime had been committed, or, where a crime consisting of degrees had been committed, to the jury’s determination of the degree of the crime. 37 In these situations, the defend- ant’s mental state at the time of the offense was a subjective inquiry, and evidence of intoxication was relevant to whether the State met its burden to prove an essential element of an offense. 38 The pattern instruction is also an incorrect statement of law to the e 2023However, it was long held that evidence of intoxication was relevant to a jury’s determina- tion of whether a defendant had a specific intent such that a crime had been committed, or, where a crime consisting of degrees had been committed, to the jury’s determination of the degree of the crime. 37 In these situations, the defend- ant’s mental state at the time of the offense was a subjective inquiry, and evidence of intoxication was relevant to whether the State met its burden to prove an essential element of an offense. 38 The pattern instruction is also an incorrect statement of law to the e | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fischergreen2 sentences2009Instruction No. 15 differs from the pattern instruction NJI2d Crim. 9.0, "Submission to the Jury," because instruction No. 15 did not include the following sentence thereof: "But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of the other jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict." However, the Supreme Court has said, "Although we have stated that the Nebraska pattern jury instructions are to be used whenever applicable, we have recognized that a failure to follow the pattern jury instructions does not automatically 2009Instruction No. 15 differs from the pattern instruction NJI2d Crim. 9.0, "Submission to the Jury," because instruction No. 15 did not include the following sentence thereof: "But do not surrender your honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of the other jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict." However, the Supreme Court has said, "Although we have stated that the Nebraska pattern jury instructions are to be used whenever applicable, we have recognized that a failure to follow the pattern jury instructions does not automatically | 1 | 1 |
State v. Keupgreen2 sentences2006However, the pattern instruction does not include the second paragraph of instruction No. 8, regarding the permissive inference that a person intends the reasonably probable result of an act, to which Iromuanya objected and has now assigned error. [18,19] This court has held that "[f]rom circumstances around a defendant's voluntary and willful act, a finder of fact may infer that the defendant intended a reasonably probable result of his or her act." State v. Keup, 265 Neb. 96, 109 , 655 N.W.2d 25, 36 (2003). 2006However, the pattern instruction does not include the second paragraph of instruction No. 8, regarding the permissive inference that a person intends the reasonably probable result of an act, to which Iromuanya objected and has now assigned error. [18,19] This court has held that "[f]rom circumstances around a defendant's voluntary and willful act, a finder of fact may infer that the defendant intended a reasonably probable result of his or her act." State v. Keup, 265 Neb. 96, 109 , 655 N.W.2d 25, 36 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garzagreen2 sentences2003In State v. Garza, 241 Neb. 934, 960 , 492 N.W.2d 32, 50 (1992), this court approved an instruction substantially similar to the pattern instruction, finding that it “accurately defines the requisite standard of proof without minimizing the due process rights of’ *43 the defendant. 2003In State v. Garza, 241 Neb. 934, 960 , 492 N.W.2d 32, 50 (1992), this court approved an instruction substantially similar to the pattern instruction, finding that it “accurately defines the requisite standard of proof without minimizing the due process rights of’ *43 the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bank v. Mickels
green
2 sentences2019Jury Instructions With regard to jury instructions, the Banks claim that the district court erred when it modified a pattern instruction on informed consent and refused to give an instruction on - 1019 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports BANK v. MICKELS Cite as 302 Neb. 1009 activation or aggravation of a preexisting condition. 2019Jury Instructions With regard to jury instructions, the Banks claim that the district court erred when it modified a pattern instruction on informed consent and refused to give an instruction on - 1019 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports BANK v. MICKELS Cite as 302 Neb. 1009 activation or aggravation of a preexisting condition. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Warlick
green
1 sentence2024App. 435 , 932 N.W.2d 880 (2019). -9- In furtherance of his argument, Dedrick asserts that the Nebraska Supreme Court previously adopted the definition of constructive possession in State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500 , 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014), and State v. Warlick, 308 Neb. 656 , 956 N.W.2d 269 (2021), and that the pattern instruction departs from the definition set forth in those cases. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Sherrod
green
1 sentence2024App. 435 , 932 N.W.2d 880 (2019). -9- In furtherance of his argument, Dedrick asserts that the Nebraska Supreme Court previously adopted the definition of constructive possession in State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500 , 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014), and State v. Warlick, 308 Neb. 656 , 956 N.W.2d 269 (2021), and that the pattern instruction departs from the definition set forth in those cases. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Tvrz v. State
green
2 sentences2023See, State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 , 795 N.W.2d 645 (2011); Tvrz v. State, 154 Neb. 641 , 48 N.W.2d 761 (1951); Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 , 60 N.W. 916 (1894); Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749 , 37 N.W. 630 (1888); Johnson v. Phifer, 6 Neb. 401 (1877). 2023See, State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 , 795 N.W.2d 645 (2011); Tvrz v. State, 154 Neb. 641 , 48 N.W.2d 761 (1951); Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 , 60 N.W. 916 (1894); Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749 , 37 N.W. 630 (1888); Johnson v. Phifer, 6 Neb. 401 (1877). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Esch
green
2 sentences2023ESCH Cite as 315 Neb. 482 was not until after the most recent revision to the pattern jury instructions that we first addressed the statute. 35 In Nebraska, it has long been recognized that “intoxica- tion is not a justification or excuse for crime.” 36 In that way, intoxication has never been a defense to a criminal offense, and intoxication has never alleviated criminal responsibility. 2023ESCH Cite as 315 Neb. 482 their actions.’” 39 Thus, we interpreted § 29-122 as having redefined the mental state elements of all subjective crimi- nal offenses in Nebraska to provide for an objective inquiry: whether the State proved circumstances surrounding the offense that would otherwise establish the requisite mental state “but for” the defendant’s voluntary intoxication. 40 Because the pattern instruction in the Nebraska Jury Instructions does not comport with our precedent and our interpretation of § 29-122, we expressly disapprove of its use. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Johnson v. Phifer
neutral
1 sentence2023See, State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 , 795 N.W.2d 645 (2011); Tvrz v. State, 154 Neb. 641 , 48 N.W.2d 761 (1951); Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 , 60 N.W. 916 (1894); Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749 , 37 N.W. 630 (1888); Johnson v. Phifer, 6 Neb. 401 (1877). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Carr v. State
green
1 sentence2023See, State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 , 795 N.W.2d 645 (2011); Tvrz v. State, 154 Neb. 641 , 48 N.W.2d 761 (1951); Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 , 60 N.W. 916 (1894); Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749 , 37 N.W. 630 (1888); Johnson v. Phifer, 6 Neb. 401 (1877). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hill v. State
green
2 sentences2023See, State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 , 795 N.W.2d 645 (2011); Tvrz v. State, 154 Neb. 641 , 48 N.W.2d 761 (1951); Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 , 60 N.W. 916 (1894); Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749 , 37 N.W. 630 (1888); Johnson v. Phifer, 6 Neb. 401 (1877). 2023See, State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 , 795 N.W.2d 645 (2011); Tvrz v. State, 154 Neb. 641 , 48 N.W.2d 761 (1951); Hill v. State, 42 Neb. 503 , 60 N.W. 916 (1894); Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749 , 37 N.W. 630 (1888); Johnson v. Phifer, 6 Neb. 401 (1877). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Abejide
green
2 sentences2023However, it was long held that evidence of intoxication was relevant to a jury’s determina- tion of whether a defendant had a specific intent such that a crime had been committed, or, where a crime consisting of degrees had been committed, to the jury’s determination of the degree of the crime. 37 In these situations, the defend- ant’s mental state at the time of the offense was a subjective inquiry, and evidence of intoxication was relevant to whether the State met its burden to prove an essential element of an offense. 38 The pattern instruction is also an incorrect statement of law to the e 2023However, it was long held that evidence of intoxication was relevant to a jury’s determina- tion of whether a defendant had a specific intent such that a crime had been committed, or, where a crime consisting of degrees had been committed, to the jury’s determination of the degree of the crime. 37 In these situations, the defend- ant’s mental state at the time of the offense was a subjective inquiry, and evidence of intoxication was relevant to whether the State met its burden to prove an essential element of an offense. 38 The pattern instruction is also an incorrect statement of law to the e | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Huerta
green
1 sentence2022“Essentially, jury instruction No. 7 failed to inform the jury that it had to find that the State proved each element of first degree sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find Huerta guilty of that crime.” State v. Huerta, 26 Neb. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re Estate of Clinger
green
1 sentence2015During deliberation, the jury asked the court to explain the difference between “[g]reater weight of the evidence” and 44 Wulf v. Kunnath, 285 Neb. 472 , 827 N.W.2d 248 (2013). - 256 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports IN RE ESTATE OF CLINGER Cite as 292 Neb. 237 “shadow of doubt.” The court merely referred the jury to instruction No. 7, which defined the burden of proof primarily using the pattern instruction.45 [18] The Court of Appeals determined that this instruction was a correct statement of the law. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.
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.