S-24-0817State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Joshua D. Tackett (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County, Judge Kevin R. McManaman
Attorneys: Timothy S. Noerrlinger (Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy for Appellant) and P. Christian Adamski (Asst. Attorney General for Appellee)
Criminal: Life imprisonment for intentional child abuse resulting in death and possession with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school
Proceedings Below: Appellant was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in death for which he was sentenced to not less than seventy (70) years in prison and not more than life. He was also convicted of possession with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school for which he was sentenced to not less than fifteen (15) years in prison and not more than twenty (20) years in prison, three (3) years of which is a mandatory minimum. Life imprisonment cases are direct appeals to the Supreme Court.
Issues: Appellant assigns the following errors: 1) The district court erred by finding that A.B.’s statement was not hearsay; 2) The district court erred by finding that A.B.’s statement did not violate the Appellant’s right to confrontation; 3) The district court erred by failing to suppress the statement the defendant made to officers from the Lincoln Police Department after his arrest; 4) The district court erred by finding that Brittany Cook’s statement to Officer Abele was not hearsay; 5) The district court erred by finding that Brittany Cook’s statement to Officer Abele did not violate Appellant’s right to confrontation; 6) The district court erred by finding that Brittany Cook’s statement to Officer Lovett was not hearsay; 7) The district court erred by finding that Brittany Cook’s statement to Officer Lovett did not violate the Appellant’s right to confrontation; 8) The district court erred by finding that Brittany Cook’s statement to Captain Dilsaver was not hearsay; 9) The district court erred by finding that Brittany Cook’s statement to Captain Dilsaver did not violate the Appellant’s right to confrontation; 10) The district court erred by finding that Brittany Cook’s statement to Investigator Barry was not hearsay; 11) The district court erred by finding that Brittany Cook’s statement to Investigator Barry did not violate the Appellant’s right to confrontation; 12) The district court erred by barring the testimony of Dr. Thomas Young as part of the Appellant’s case in chief at trial; 13) The district court erred by overruling the Appellant’s objection and motion for a mistrial after trial counsel for the Appellee committed misconduct during closing argument; 14) The district court erred by overruling the Appellant’s objection to the presentation of improper rebuttal evidence of the Appellee at trial; 15) The district court erred by finding that Brittany Cook’s statement to Investigator Barry presented in rebuttal was not hearsay; 16) The district court erred by finding that Brittany Cook’s statement to Investigator Barry presented in rebuttal did not violate the Appellant’s right to confrontation; 17) The district court erred by finding that Karen Vestecka was unavailable and allowing the Appellee to read her deposition in at the Appellant’s trial; 18) The district court erred by finding that Jacob Tackett was unavailable and allowing the Appellee to read his deposition in at the Appellant’s trial; 19) The district court erred by overruling the Appellant’s motion to continue the trial due to evidence disclosed on the eve of trial; 20) The district court erred by overruling the Appellant’s request for proposed jury instructions; and 21) The court overruled the Appellant’s objection of Brittany Cook’s statements to Tiffany Tackett on hearsay grounds.