State v. Connelly
| Citation | 307 Neb. 495,949 N.W.2d 519 |
| Decision Date | 16 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. S-19-1139.,S-19-1139. |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Jeremiah L. CONNELLY, appellant |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and Leslie E. Cavanaugh, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Stacy M. Foust, Lincoln, for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
The appellant, Jeremiah L. Connelly, filed a motion to suppress in the district court for Douglas County, Nebraska, seeking to have statements he made to law enforcement suppressed in violation of his Miranda rights. The district court denied Connelly's motion, finding Connelly's pre- Miranda statements were not made in response to an interrogation and his post- Miranda statements were made voluntarily. We affirm.
On September 21, 2018, Omaha police officers Kirk Weidner and Mark Pruett were on routine patrol in the area of 90th Street and Bedford Avenue in Omaha, Nebraska. While patrolling the area, Weidner and Pruett observed a car exit a parking lot, cross two lanes of traffic, and run a stoplight. Upon pursuing the car, the officers observed the car parked in an alleyway and saw the driver exit the vehicle and head north. As Weidner and Pruett approached the vehicle, they received information from Omaha police dispatch of a report of a stolen car matching the description of the car they were observing. The officers gave chase on foot and apprehended the fleeing driver, later identified as Connelly.
Sgt. Tammy Mitchell, with the Omaha police's auto theft unit, instructed Weidner and Pruett to transport Connelly to the police station for an interview. Connelly was placed in handcuffs and put in the back of the cruiser, but was not read his Miranda rights.
Once Weidner, Pruett, and Connelly arrived at the police station, they waited in the lobby because all of the interview rooms were occupied. In the lobby, Connelly voluntarily provided the officers with information about the auto theft. He told Weidner, "You guys are worried about this petty auto theft when you should be worried about her life." When Weidner asked, "Whose life?" Connelly responded with a name that Weidner did not recognize. Connelly was then turned over to Mitchell for an interview.
Mitchell and a detective entered the interview room where Connelly was seated. Mitchell noticed that Connelly had his jeans rolled up to his knees and that his legs were red and swollen. The interview proceeded as follows:
, you think?
Connelly: I don't know. It started Monday.
Pruett: He said it was from a sunburn, being outside all day yesterday, and then he said he had (inaudible) in the knees from running, so.
Connelly: No, it's not from running.
Mitchell: Okay, what happened?
5:43:34 P.M.
Connelly: It's from dumping her body in Fremont, that's what it's fucking from. "Mister-I-nearly-record-everything," piece of shit (referring to Pruett, one of the arresting officers). Hero of the fucking day out there, he don't listen to a damn word.
Mitchell: Well, tell me, I'll listen.
Connelly: He wants to give a shit about fucking cars all day dude, who cares about fucking cars?
Mitchell: Nobody does.
Connelly: Jeanna Wilcoxen. J-E-A-N-N-A, dude.
Mitchell: How do you know her?
Connelly: She's in Fremont, that's how I know her.
Mitchell: Okay, what's she doing in Fremont? Is she in danger?
Connelly: You can't help her no more.
Mitchell: What do you mean?
Connelly: She's laying out there. You can fly over and find ... (interrupted by Mitchell).
Mitchell: What do you mean? She—how do you spell "Jeanna?" J-E-A-N-N-A? Is that right?
Connelly: Wilcoxen.
Mitchell: Is she missing? Do we need to go help somebody—
Connelly: Don't nobody even know dude?
Mitchell: Nobody knows she's missing?
At about 5½ minutes into the interview, Mitchell sent the detective out of the interview room. Connelly then stated that his legs were sunburned because he was outside for 2 hours the day before, contemplating jumping off a bridge to his death. The following exchange occurred:
Connelly starts to cry as he recounts how he "duct-taped" her, told her he was not going to rape her, and explained he just wanted to take "her money and her dope," but that things got out of hand. Approximately 45 minutes into the interview, a homicide unit detective, David Preston, took over and led the remainder of the interview.
Preston obtained Connelly's date of birth and address, and for the first time, he read Connelly his Miranda rights and asked if, having been informed of his rights, he would still be willing to speak with him. Connelly answered yes, and Preston filled out a rights advisory form, which Connelly did not sign. Preston showed Connelly a map of Fremont, Nebraska, to assist in finding Jeanna Wilcoxen's location. Preston then asked Connelly to "start back from the beginning" and to explain "what happened actually." While recounting his story, Connelly made reference to a "beast" and hearing voices:
Connelly then went on to explain how he killed Wilcoxen. At the conclusion of Connelly's interview, because the location of Wilcoxen's body still could not be determined, Weidner, Pruett, and Preston took Connelly to Fremont in an attempt to locate Wilcoxen. Wilcoxen's body was eventually discovered in an area very close to what Connelly had described. Connelly also directed the officers to 53rd & Y Streets in Omaha, advising that was the location where the murder had occurred. He then took them to an alley at 34th & K in Omaha where they found a tablet computer belonging to Wilcoxen that Connelly had discarded. Connelly then led Preston to Council Bluffs, Iowa, and to Columbus, Nebraska, to look for Wilcoxen's cell phone and his cell phone, but attempts to locate the cell phones were unsuccessful....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
...however, is a question of law, which an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court's determination. State v. Connelly , 307 Neb. 495, 949 N.W.2d 519 (2020). A district court's conclusion whether an identification is consistent with due process is reviewed de novo, but the cour......
-
State v. Khalaf
...319 (2000)). Generally, a statement freely and voluntarily given without any compelling influences is admissible. State v. Connelly, 307 Neb. 495, 949 N.W.2d 519 (2020). To meet the requirement that a defendant's statement, admission, or confession was made freely and voluntarily, the evide......
-
State v. Castillas
...is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not necessary to adjudicate the case and controversy before it. State v. Connelly, 307 Neb. 495, 949 N.W.2d 519 (2020).CONCLUSION The district court did not err in denying Castillas' motion for postconviction relief. ...
-
State v. Rodriguez
...such statement, admission, or confession was not the product of any promise or inducement, direct, indirect, or implied, no matter how slight. Id. In order entered on December 3, 2020, the district court found that Rodriguez' statements to law enforcement were voluntarily made under the tot......