State v. Davis
| Decision Date | 08 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. S–14–508,S–14–508 |
| Citation | 862 N.W.2d 731 |
| Parties | State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Anthony D. Davis, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and Kelly M. Steenbock for appellant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Melissa R. Vincent for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Stephan, McCormack, Miller–Lerman, and Cassel, JJ.
1. Motions for Mistrial: Appeal and Error.Whether to grant a mistrial is within the trial court's discretion, and an appellate court will not disturb its ruling unless the court abused its discretion.
2. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error.In reviewing a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support a criminal conviction, an appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact, and a conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if the evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction.
3. Criminal Law: Motions for Mistrial: Appeal and Error.A mistrial is properly granted in a criminal case where an event occurs during the course of a trial which is of such a nature that its damaging effect cannot be removed by proper admonition or instruction to the jury and thus prevents a fair trial.
4. Motions for Mistrial: Motions to Strike: Proof: Appeal and Error.Error cannot ordinarily be predicated on the failure to grant a mistrial if an objection or motion to strike the improper material is sustained and the jury is admonished to disregard such material. The defendant must prove that the alleged error actually prejudiced him or her, rather than creating only the possibility of prejudice.
5. Appeal and Error.When determining whether an alleged error is so prejudicial as to justify reversal, courts generally consider whether the error, in light of the totality of the record, influenced the outcome of the case.
6. Criminal Law: Trial.In some cases, the damaging effect of an event during trial may be such that it cannot be removed by proper admonition or instruction to the jury and thus prevents a fair trial.
7. Verdicts: Juries: Jury Instructions: Presumptions.Absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that a jury followed the instructions given in arriving at its verdict.
8. Criminal Law: Pretrial Procedure.After a proper request by the defendant, the State is required to disclose all material information.
9. Criminal Law: Pretrial Procedure: Motions for Mistrial.The failure of the State to disclose properly requested information could potentially impact the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial to such a degree that a mistrial may be necessary.
10. Criminal Law: Evidence: Appeal and Error.In reviewing a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
11. Evidence: Appeal and Error.As with any sufficiency claim, regardless whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, an appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact.
Miguel Avalos and two of his sons were shot to death in their Omaha, Nebraska, home during an apparent home invasion robbery. Avalos was a known drug dealer. The attempted robbery was allegedly orchestrated by Greg Logemann, another drug dealer in the area. Logemann contacted the defendant, Anthony D. Davis, and another individual, Timothy Britt, about the opportunity to rob Avalos.
At Davis' trial, multiple witnesses testified to observing that Logemann had pointed out the Avalos home to Davis earlier in the day and also testified that Davis and Britt were at the Avalos home at the time the murders took place. One
witness made an unsolicited comment that Davis had previously been in prison. Another witness' testimony differed substantially from her earlier deposition testimony regarding incriminating statements made by Davis about the murders. On both occasions, Davis moved for a mistrial. The district court denied both motions.
Davis was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and three counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and he was sentenced to three life sentences and 75 to 90 years' imprisonment. Davis now appeals. We determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Davis' two motions for mistrial and that the verdicts were not based on evidence that was insufficient to prove Davis guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
On July 9, 2012, Avalos and two of his sons were killed inside Avalos' home in Omaha. All three had been shot multiple times and died as a result of their wounds
. Avalos' oldest son was in the house in a downstairs bedroom with his wife and child at the time the three were shot upstairs. He testified that he woke up to the sound of gunshots at approximately 3:45 a.m. He locked the door to the bedroom and called the 911 emergency dispatch service, remaining on the telephone until police arrived. Police observed signs of forced entry at one of the entrances to the residence. Inside Avalos' bedroom within the residence, police discovered methamphetamine and over $5,000 in cash. A defaced .40–caliber semiautomatic pistol was also found in the residence.
The State alleges that the three victims were killed by Davis and Britt during an attempted robbery. Logemann testified that he had orchestrated the robbery. Logemann and Avalos were both drug dealers, and Logemann believed Avalos was an easy target. Logemann had previously tried to eliminate Avalos as a competitor by assisting the Omaha Police Department in making controlled drug buys from Avalos. In exchange for his testimony at trial, Logemann was granted use immunity and not charged with the murders. Logemann was charged
with criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, a Class II felony. Logemann admitted to lying to the detectives the first time he spoke with them about the murders, but testified that he told the detectives everything he knew the second time he was interviewed.
Logemann testified that on July 8, 2012, he offered to show Davis where Avalos lived. Davis contacted Crystal Branch, an acquaintance, and asked for a ride. Branch then asked her roommate, Charice Jones, if she would be willing to give Davis a ride. Jones agreed. Branch and Jones drove in Jones' vehicle to Davis' apartment in Council Bluffs, Iowa. According to both Branch and Jones, the two picked up Davis and the group then picked up Logemann.
Branch and Jones both testified that Logemann had Jones drive past the Avalos residence and that Logemann pointed out which house belonged to Avalos. While in the vehicle, neither Branch nor Jones heard anyone mention a potential robbery. According to Branch and Jones, Logemann told them that Logemann saw his sister outside of Avalos' house. Logemann's sister, who purchased drugs from Avalos, testified that she was at Avalos' home on the evening of July 8, 2012, and had observed a “weird dark colored truck” slowly drive by the residence.
Davis, Britt, Branch, and Jones then returned to Jones and Branch's residence.
The group remained there until approximately 2 a.m. Branch testified that Davis then told her, “[O]kay we can go now, the guy's home.” After stopping for gas, Jones drove Davis, Britt, and Branch back to the Avalos residence in her vehicle. Jones parked the vehicle “a block or two away” from the house. Davis and Britt both exited the vehicle, while Jones and Branch waited inside the vehicle. Both Jones and Branch testified that they believed the two men were going to Avalos' house to purchase more drugs. After approximately 20 minutes, Davis and Britt returned to the vehicle. Branch testified that she saw Davis running back to the vehicle and that Britt came back to the vehicle a few minutes after Davis. Britt was wearing all black and had a handkerchief over his face. Davis had on jeans and a light-colored T-shirt.
At approximately 4 a.m., Davis called Tiaotta Clairday, his ex-girlfriend, several times before she finally answered the telephone. Davis told Clairday that he “really needed” her to pick him up. Clairday testified that Davis sounded nervous. When Clairday arrived, Davis got in the front seat of the vehicle. Clairday testified that Davis admitted to robbing a house and that Davis and the person he was with “just started shooting” when they saw someone coming down the hall. Davis informed Clairday that Britt needed to come along with them too, because Britt had a gun. After Britt got into the vehicle, Britt handed a .22–caliber revolver to Clairday.
Clairday, Davis, and Britt then drove to Larry Lautenschlager's apartment in Council Bluffs. Lautenschlager is another acquaintance of Clairday and Davis. Clairday testified that she gave the gun to Lautenschlager and told him to get rid of it. Clairday then had a private conversation with Davis inside the bathroom of Lautenschlager's apartment. Clairday testified that Davis told her that “some people got shot and that he didn't want [Clairday] by [Britt] by [herself].” After Davis and Clairday left the bathroom, Clairday testified that she observed Britt outside the apartment burning a pair of gloves on the grill.
Davis also allegedly spoke to Logemann about what had occurred. Logemann testified that shortly after the murders, Davis told him that Britt “started flipping out” and began firing his weapon in the hallway of the house. However, Davis gave a different account to Logemann the following day and denied any involvement. Logemann testified that he received a text from Davis the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Britt
...The State describes as “virtually nonexistent” any possibility that Davis would have agreed to testify.79 Relying on the record in State v. Davis,80 the State notes that Davis' sentencing was pending for his own convictions at the time of Britt's trial. The State also asserts without citati......
-
Custer v. Frakes
...evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction. State v. Davis, 290 Neb. 826, 862 N.W.2d 731 (2015).Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support C......
-
State v. Custer
...evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction. State v. Davis, 290 Neb. 826, 862 N.W.2d 731 (2015). When a defendant has not preserved a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for direct appeal, we will review the record onl......
-
State v. Quinn
... ... court instructed the jury to only consider the testimony for ... the prescribed limited and specific purpose, and not to infer ... that Quinn is guilty of any charges based upon S.G.'s and ... Nagy's testimony. See State v. Davis , 290 Neb ... 826, 834, 862 N.W.2d 731, 737 (2015) (an admonishment of the ... jury is typically sufficient to cure any prejudice) ... Lastly, ... though Quinn argues that the commercial sexual encounters ... between Nagy and S.G. are not ... ...