State v. Henderson
| Decision Date | 17 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. S–13–559,S–13–559 |
| Citation | 854 N.W.2d 616 |
| Parties | State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Tillman T. Henderson, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, Matthew J. Miller, and Zoë R. Wade for appellant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss, Lincoln, for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Stephan, McCormack, Miller–Lerman, and Cassel, JJ.
1. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Motions to Suppress: Appeal and Error.In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review. Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court's findings for clear error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court's determination.
2. Rules of Evidence.In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility.
3. Rules of Evidence: Appeal and Error.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.
4. Judgments: Words and Phrases.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.
5. Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error.An appellate court reviews the trial court's conclusions with regard to evidentiary foundation and witness qualification for an abuse of discretion.
6. Criminal Law: Pretrial Procedure: Appeal and Error.Discovery in a criminal case is generally controlled by either a statute or court rule. Therefore, unless granted as a matter of right under the Constitution or other law, discovery is within the discretion of a trial court, whose ruling will be upheld on appeal unless the trial court has abused its discretion.
7. 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.
8. Search and Seizure: Arrests: Police Officers and Sheriffs.The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
9. Search Warrants: Affidavits: Probable Cause: Appeal and Error.In reviewing the strength of an affidavit submitted as a basis for finding probable cause to issue a search warrant, an appellate court applies a totality of the circumstances test. The question is whether, under the totality of the circumstances illustrated by the affidavit, the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis for finding that the affidavit established probable cause.
10. Search Warrants: Probable Cause: Words and Phrases.Probable cause sufficient to justify issuance of a search warrant means a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.
11. Constitutional Law: Probable Cause.In addition to the requirement of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment contains a particularity requirement.
12. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Search Warrants: Probable Cause.The Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement must be respected in connection with the breadth of a permissible search of the contents of a cell phone. Accordingly, a warrant for the search of the contents of a cell phone must be sufficiently limited in scope to allow a search of only that content that is related to the probable cause that justifies the search.
13. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Search Warrants: Probable Cause.The particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment protects against open-ended warrants that leave the scope of the search to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant, or permit seizure of items other than what is described.
14. Search Warrants: Search and Seizure.A warrant satisfies the particularity requirement if it leaves nothing about its scope to the discretion of the officer serving it. That is, a warrant whose authorization is particular has the salutary effect of preventing overseizure and oversearching.
15. Motions to Suppress: Search Warrants: Affidavits: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Evidence: Search and Seizure.The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that evidence seized under an invalid warrant need not be suppressed when police officers act in objectively reasonable good faith in reliance upon the warrant. Nevertheless, evidence suppression will still be appropriate if one of four circumstances exists: (1) The magistrate or judge in issuing the warrant was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for his or her reckless
disregard for the truth; (2) the issuing magistrate wholly abandoned his or her judicial role; (3) the supporting affidavit was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; or (4) the warrant is so facially deficient that the executing officer cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.
16. Search and Seizure: Police Officers and Sheriffs.The good faith inquiry is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the search was illegal despite a magistrate's authorization.
17. Search Warrants: Affidavits: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Appeal and Error.In assessing the good faith of an officer's conducting a search under a warrant, an appellate court must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the warrant, including information not contained within the four corners of the affidavit.
18. Criminal Law: Trial: Evidence.Where objects pass through several hands before being produced in court, it is necessary to establish a complete chain of evidence, tracing the initial possession of the object or article to its final custodian; and if one link in the chain is missing, the object may not be introduced in evidence.
19. Trial: Evidence: Proof.Proof that an exhibit remained in the custody of law enforcement officials is sufficient to prove a chain of possession and is sufficient foundation to permit its introduction into evidence.
20. Trial: Evidence.Whether there is sufficient foundation to admit physical evidence is determined on a case-by-case basis.
21. Hearsay: Words and Phrases.Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
22. Criminal Law: Due Process: Pretrial Procedure.A defendant in a criminal proceeding has no general due process right to discovery.
23. Criminal Law: Constitutional Law: Due Process: Rules of Evidence.Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clauses of the 6th Amendment, the federal Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.
24. Pretrial Procedure.A defendant does not have an unfettered right to discovery.
25. 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.
26. Motions for Mistrial: Proof.A defendant faces a higher threshold than merely showing a possibility of prejudice when attempting to prove error predicated on the failure to grant a mistrial. Instead, the defendant must prove the alleged error actually prejudiced him or her, rather than creating only the possibility of prejudice.
Tillman T. Henderson appeals his convictions in the district court for Douglas County for several felonies. He claims, inter alia, that the district court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of the contents of a cell phone that was found on his person at the time he was arrested. We affirm Henderson's convictions and sentences.
Henderson was convicted of first degree murder in connection with the shooting death of Matthew Voss and attempted first degree murder in connection with the shooting of Antonio Washington. He was convicted of two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony in connection with the foregoing crimes. He was also convicted of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person.
Testimony at trial indicated that in the early morning hours of February 18, 2012, a fight broke out at an after-hours party in downtown Omaha, Nebraska. Witnesses reported seeing two men firing guns. Voss and Washington both sustained gunshot wounds
; Voss died as a result of his wounds, while Washington survived but was severely injured.
Henderson was apprehended by police as he was running from the scene of the incident. A person who was at the scene had identified Henderson to a police officer as one of the shooters. The other suspect was not apprehended. One gun was found on Henderson's person when he was arrested, and a police officer saw Henderson throw another gun under a vehicle as the officer was chasing him.
Forensic evidence presented at trial indicated that bullets and casings found at the scene of the shootings had been fired from the gun found on Henderson and from the gun he was seen throwing under a vehicle. A fingerprint on the gun found under the vehicle matched Henderson's. In addition, DNA testing of blood found on the clothing worn by Henderson...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Short
...than a warrant authorizing the search of "any and all" information stored on a cell phone.123 We explained in Goynes that the warrants in Henderson violated the requirements of particularity because, in addition to listed types of cell phone data to search, they authorized a broad search of......
-
State v. Fairley
..., 193 Wash.2d 271, 438 P.3d 528 (2019) ; United States v. Russian , 848 F.3d 1239, 1245 (10th Cir. 2017) ; State v. Henderson , 289 Neb. 271, 288, 854 N.W.2d 616 (2014), cert denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2845, 192 L.Ed.2d 881 (2015) ; see also Perrone , 119 Wn.2d at 547, 834 P.2d 611 ......
-
State v. Henry, S–14–519.
...1 State v. Schmidt, 276 Neb. 723, 757 N.W.2d 291 (2008).2 See State v. Shurter, 238 Neb. 54, 468 N.W.2d 628 (1991).3 State v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271, 854 N.W.2d 616 (2014).4 See Annot., 5 A.L.R.2d 444 (1949).5 See State v. Foster, 286 Neb. 826, 839 N.W.2d 783 (2013).6 State v. Russell, 292......
-
Burns v. United States
...State , 185 A.3d 1, 15, 18-19 (Del. 2018) ; Commonwealth v. Broom , 474 Mass. 486, 52 N.E.3d 81, 88-90 (2016) ; State v. Henderson , 289 Neb. 271, 854 N.W.2d 616, 631-34 (2014) ; People v. Thompson , 178 A.D.3d 457, 116 N.Y.S.3d 2 (2019).In Morales , the case with the most closely analogous......
-
Suspects Use Cell Phones, but So Do We: State v. Goynes and the Constitutional Dangers of Boilerplate Search Warrants
...state courts to determine when cell phone search warrants comply with the Fourth Amendment). [5]SeeState v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271, 289, 854 N.W.2d 616, 633 (2014) (analyzing the sufficiency of a cell phone search warrant for the first time post-Riley v. California and noting that "the pri......