State v. Briggs
Decision Date | 14 June 2019 |
Docket Number | S-17-1321.,Nos. S-17-1183,s. S-17-1183 |
Citation | 929 N.W.2d 65,303 Neb. 352 |
Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellee, v. Reginald B. BRIGGS, appellant. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Ernest H. Addison, Jr., and A. Michael Bianchi, Omaha, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Siobhan E. Duffy, Lincoln, for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller -Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
A jury found Reginald B. Briggs guilty of manslaughter, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and pandering.Briggs later pleaded guilty to another charge of pandering, which had been severed from the other charges prior to trial.Briggs now appeals a number of issues pertaining to his convictions and sentences.We find no merit to his various assignments of error.We do find plain error in his sentencing and thus vacate his sentences in part and remand the matter for resentencing.
An amended information charged Briggs with 7 counts: first degree murder with the victim alleged to be Teresa Longo, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, pandering with the victim alleged to be Longo, pandering with the victim alleged to be Raynette Heidt, and two charges of third degree domestic assault.The information also alleged that Briggs was a habitual criminal.
Prior to trial, Briggs filed motions to sever the pandering and domestic assault counts from the other charges.At a hearing on the motions, the State conceded to severance of the domestic assault charges.The district court also granted the motion as to the pandering charge in which Heidt was the alleged victim.The court declined to sever the pandering charge in which Longo was the alleged victim and ordered that it be joined for trial with the murder and weapons charges.
After the district court’s order on Briggs' severance motion, the State filed a motion in limine in which it sought an order authorizing it to adduce evidence of Briggs' pandering of Heidt at the trial on the murder, weapons, and pandering of Longo charges.The district court granted the motion in limine.In a written order, it found that evidence of Briggs' pandering of Heidt was inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes.
A jury trial was held on the murder and weapons charges and on the pandering charge alleging Longo to be the victim.The most relevant evidence for purposes of this appeal will be detailed below.
Much of the evidence concerning pandering came from testimony of Heidt.Heidt testified that she has known Briggs since 2009 and that they began a romantic relationship in December 2013.At some point in 2015, both Briggs and Longo started residing with Heidt and her two children at a house in Omaha, Nebraska.Heidt testified that during that time, she, Briggs, and Longo were engaged in prostitution, with Heidt and Longo acting as prostitutes and Briggs acting as their "pimp" by controlling the finances and deciding if and when Heidt and Longo were going to engage in prostitution.
Heidt testified that she would place advertisements both for herself and for Longo on a website used to advertise prostitution.Briggs directed her to post the advertisements and provided money to place them.Heidt and Longo engaged in prostitution in various hotels in the area, and the rooms were paid for by Briggs.Briggs set the prices to be charged per hour, and Heidt and Longo would be paid in cash, which they would give to Briggs.Records from various hotels in the area were entered into evidence, showing rooms booked in either Briggs' or Longo’s name during the summer of 2015.
Heidt also provided testimony regarding Longo’s disappearance.She testified that at some point in the early morning of September 17, 2015, Briggs told Longo to gather her belongings and leave with him.Longo then left with Briggs, taking with her a red suitcase she often took when going out for the evening.Heidt never saw Longo again.
Briggs returned to the house without Longo a few hours later.When he arrived, Briggs washed all of his clothing in the washing machine even though he did not typically do his own laundry.After showering and getting dressed, and while it was still dark outside, Briggs made Heidt drive him to a nearby creek without using the car’s headlights.Briggs got out of the car, walked around to the back, and retrieved his jacket, which appeared to be concealing something inside it as he carried it in his arms.When Briggs returned about 5 minutes later, he was still carrying the jacket, but it appeared lighter, as if there was no longer anything inside.
Heidt testified that Briggs owned a shotgun and that as of August 2015, he was keeping the shotgun beneath the stairs of their basement.Heidt testified that the last time she saw the shotgun in that location was the first week in September.
Nathan Jandreau, an acquaintance of Briggs, testified that sometime in September 2015, Briggs came to his home.Jandreau testified that during that visit, Briggs pulled Jandreau aside and whispered to him that Briggs "fucked up."When asked to explain, Briggs said, "I accidentally shot the bitch."When Jandreau asked whom Briggs had shot, Briggs replied, "the white girl."Jandreau then asked for more details, and Briggs said that "he was trying to scare her and the gun accidentally went off."Briggs added that he had left the body in Jandreau’s house.
Jandreau understood Briggs to be referring to a home in which he had previously resided.After Jandreau moved out of that home, no one resided in it, but it was always unlocked and many people sold drugs and guns out of it.Two days after the conversation between Jandreau and Briggs, Jandreau went to that location.As he walked by the bathroom, he saw feet sticking out of the shower.Jandreau left, but later told law enforcement about the body after he was arrested for an unrelated crime at the end of September 2015.
Based on the information provided by Jandreau, police officers obtained a search warrant and visited the home.Upon entering the home, one of the investigating officers smelled an odor he associated with decaying flesh.In the living room area, the officers found a red suitcase.The officers located a female body in the shower.A purse containing identification and debit cards with Longo’s name was found near the body.The body was identified as Longo’s based on a thumbprint.
An autopsy revealed a large wound in the back of Longo’s head.The inside of the skull, where the brain would usually sit, was exposed.The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy concluded, based on a number of factors, that the cause of death was a close-range shotgun wound to the back of the head.A forensic entomologist analyzed maggots found on Longo’s body and determined that she died between September 15 and 21, 2015.
The jury did not convict Briggs of the charged crime of first degree murder, but instead convicted him of manslaughter.
It also convicted him of the other charges of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and pandering.Briggs filed a motion for new trial, which was overruled.
The district court determined Briggs qualified as a habitual criminal under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2221(Reissue 2016) and sentenced him accordingly.The district court sentenced Briggs to 20 years' imprisonment for manslaughter, 40 to 50 years' imprisonment for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, 10 years' imprisonment for possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and 10 years' imprisonment for pandering.The sentences for these charges were ordered to be served consecutively, and Briggs was awarded 764 days' credit for time served.Briggs timely appealed.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Briggs later entered a plea of no contest to the previously severed charge of pandering involving Heidt and the State dismissed the remaining domestic assault charges.The district court accepted the no contest plea and sentenced Briggs to 10 years' imprisonment with the sentence to be served concurrently with his other sentences.In the sentencing order, the district court awarded Briggs 794 days' credit for time served.Briggs also timely appealed his conviction and sentence for this charge.
Briggs assigns nine errors on appeal, which we have condensed and restated as follows: The district court erred (1) in denying the motion to sever the pandering charge, (2) in admitting evidence of Briggs' pandering of Heidt, (3) in denying Briggs' challenges to jury selection, (4) in denying Briggs' motions for mistrial, (5) in denying Briggs' motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the State’s case, (6) in denying Briggs' motion for new trial, (7) in finding Briggs to be a habitual criminal, and (8) in imposing excessive sentences.
A denial of a motion to sever will not be reversed unless clear prejudice and an abuse of discretion are shown, and an appellate court will find such an abuse only where the denial caused the defendant substantial prejudice amounting to a miscarriage of justice.State v. Cotton , 299 Neb. 650, 910 N.W.2d 102(2018), disapproved on other grounds,State v. Avina-Murillo , 301 Neb. 185, 917 N.W.2d 865(2018).
Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.State v. Smith , 286 Neb. 856, 839 N.W.2d 333(2013).
An appellate court reviews de novo the facial validity of an attorney’s race-neutral...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Trail
...Brief for appellant at 36.84 State v. Figures, supra note 9.85 State v. Grant , 293 Neb. 163, 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016).86 State v. Briggs , 303 Neb. 352, 929 N.W.2d 65 (2019).87 See, David F. Herr & Roger S. Haydock, Motion Practice § 21.04 (8th ed. 2021) (discussing curative instructions); Da......
-
State v. Vann
...overruling the motion for dismissal or a directed verdict but may still challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. State v. Briggs , 303 Neb. 352, 929 N.W.2d 65 (2019). Vann also asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. When a criminal defendant challenges the s......
-
State v. Garcia
...2016).56 Brief for appellant at 216.57 State v. Benson , 305 Neb. 949, 943 N.W.2d 426 (2020).58 Id.59 Id.60 Id.61 State v. Briggs , 303 Neb. 352, 929 N.W.2d 65 (2019).62 Id.63 Id.64 Id.65 State v. Benson, supra note 57.66 Id.67 See State v. Golyar , 301 Neb. 488, 919 N.W.2d 133 (2018).68 Br......
-
State v. Ewinger, A-18-470.
...are directed to the discretion of the trial court, and will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Briggs, 303 Neb. 352, 929 N.W.2d 65 (2019). The standard for reviewing the admissibility of expert testimony is abuse of discretion. State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575, 856 N......