State v. Schuller

24 Citing cases

  1. State v. Mucia

    292 Neb. 1 (Neb. 2015)   Cited 9 times

    01 requires proof of the “specific intention to possess child pornography,” the Court of Appeals stated it was unable to locate any Nebraska cases on the question but found State v. Schuller instructive.State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014).State v. Ramsay, 257 Neb. 430, 436, 598 N.W.2d 51, 56 (1999).

  2. State v. Mucia

    22 Neb. App. 821 (Neb. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    State v. Hansen, 289 Neb. 478, 855 N.W.2d 777 (2014). See, also, State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014). 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.

  3. State v. Dedrick

    No. A-23-312 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2024)

    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.

  4. State v. Ford

    No. A-18-478 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019)

    An appellate court will sustain a conviction in a bench trial of a criminal case if the properly admitted evidence, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support that conviction. State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014). In making this determination, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, evaluate explanations, or reweigh the evidence presented, which are within a fact finder's province for disposition.

  5. New v. State

    327 Ga. App. 87 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that a computer user looking at child pornography on a website "gains actual control over the images, just as a person who intentionally browses child pornography in a print magazine ‘knowingly possesses' those images, even if he later puts the magazine down"

    The totality of the evidence presented by the State, of course, must support an inference that the act was wilful and not inadvertent.See State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 518, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014) ( “[T]he allegations in this case did not rest solely on the knowing possession of the deleted images; rather, the deleted images were also evidence of [the defendant's] prior possession, i.e., when he searched for, downloaded, and viewed child pornography (and before he deleted it).”)See Wise v. State, 364 S.W.3d 900, 905(I) (Tex.Crim.App.2012) ( “[E]vidence of pornography found in a computer cache could be sufficient to support a conviction because the presence of the images in the cache is evidence that, at some earlier point, a defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed the images by viewing them online.”).

  6. State v. Rael

    548 P.3d 66 (N.M. 2024)   Cited 2 times
    Stating "a legislature is presumed to say what it means and mean what it says"

    See United States v. Clark, 24 F.4th 565, 576-77 (6th Cir. 2022) (relying, in part, on the defendant’s use of "two evidence destruction programs" on his computer in concluding that the defendant "knowingly distributed illegal images and videos … on a peer-to-peer network"); State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626, 637 (2014) ("It seems reasonable to infer that [the defendant] deleted the files to hide evidence of his earlier knowing possession [of child pornography]."). [24] {67} Second, Defendant’s credibility was tested and contradicted in several material respects.

  7. State v. Short

    310 Neb. 81 (Neb. 2021)   Cited 15 times
    Explaining that court "reexamines the affidavit after deleting the false or misleading statement and including the omitted information" and then determines "whether, viewed under the totality of the circumstances, it still establishes probable cause"

    Id.SeeState v. Schuller , 287 Neb. 500, 507, 843 N.W.2d 626, 632 (2014) (quoting Franks v. Delaware, supra note 51 ). Courts have extended the Franks rationale to omissions in warrant affidavits of material information.

  8. State v. Warlick

    308 Neb. 656 (Neb. 2021)   Cited 17 times

    See id.State v. Schuller , 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014).Id.

  9. State v. Montoya

    304 Neb. 96 (Neb. 2019)   Cited 20 times

    Instead, the relevant question 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.State v. Schuller , 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014).Id.

  10. State v. Lee

    290 Neb. 601 (Neb. 2015)   Cited 10 times
    Noting that normally, voluntary guilty plea waives all defenses to criminal charge

    An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, evaluate explanations, or reweigh the evidence presented, which are within a fact finder's province for disposition. See State v. Schuller, 287 Neb. 500, 843 N.W.2d 626 (2014). The district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Lindemeier's testimony that he explained to Lee the effect of a motion to continue on the speedy trial clock and that Lee consented to each continuance. Nor did the court in any way hinder Lee from offering evidence to rebut Lindemeier's testimony.