S-24-0612 State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Ivell M. Hagens (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County, Judge J. Russell Derr
Attorneys: Jason E. Troia (Jason Troia Law for Appellant) and Jordan Osborne (Asst. Attorney General for Appellee)
Criminal: First-degree sexual assault of a child and incest with a person under age eighteen (18)
Proceedings below: A jury found Appellant guilty of first-degree sexual assault on a child and incest with a person under age eighteen (18). Appellant received an aggregate sentence of fifty-five (55) to seventy (70) years in prison. On its own motion, the Supreme Court ordered that this case be transferred from the docket of the Court of Appeals to its docket.
Issues: Appellant assigns the following errors: 1) There was insufficient evidence adduced to support the convictions for Counts I and II; 2) The district court abused its discretion in the excessive prison sentence imposed; 3) The State committed prosecutorial misconduct when it intentionally attempted to circumvent a rule of evidence and taint the jury by asking questions of more than one witnesses about J.C. reporting a second incident; 4) Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to move for a mistrial and request a curative instruction to the State’s attempts at eliciting testimony of an additional incident and when the mother slipped it in; 5) Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when they advised him not to testify; 6) Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to subpoena the video footage from Ring in a timely fashion; 7) Appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to call his witnesses; 8) The district court erred in allowing hearsay testimony by J.C. as to J.C.’s statements and in not granting a curative instruction for the same; 9) To the extent Appellant’s counsel waived objections to the above hearsay by not requesting a curative instruction or moving for a mistrial, those failures amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel; 10) The district court erred in allowing the State to get J.C.’s statements to J.C. and the interviewer and J.C.’s statements into evidence through the detective; and 11) To the extent Appellant’s counsel waived objection to the above hearsay by not objecting properly, requesting a curative instruction or moving for a mistrial, those failures amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel.