Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Workman

Court of Appeals of Nebraska

December 10, 2013

State of Nebraska, Appellee,
v.
Mathew W. Workman, Appellant.

Page 109

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 110

Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: WILLIAM B. ZASTERA, Judge.

Judgment reversed, sentence vacated, and cause remanded for further proceedings.

Patrick J. Boylan, Chief Deputy Sarpy County Public Defender, for appellant.

Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Kimberly A. Klein, Lincoln, for appellee.

Inbody, Chief Judge, and Irwin and Moore, Judges.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Due Process. The determination of whether the procedures afforded an individual comport with the constitutional requirements for procedural due process presents a question of law.

2. Probation and Parole: Due Process. The minimal due process to which a parolee or probationer is entitled also applies to participants in the drug court program. This minimal due process includes (1) written notice of the time and place of the hearing; (2) disclosure of evidence; (3) a neutral factfinding body [21 Neb.App. 525] or person, who should not be the officer directly involved

Page 111

in making recommendations; (4) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (5) the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, unless the hearing officer determines that an informant would be subjected to risk of harm if his or her identity were disclosed or unless the officer otherwise specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation; and (6) a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking the conditional liberty.

3. Probation and Parole. A probation revocation hearing is not part of a criminal prosecution or adjudication and therefore does not give rise to the full panoply of rights that are due a defendant at a trial or a juvenile in an adjudication proceeding. The same proposition should apply in a drug court termination hearing.

4. Appeal and Error. An alleged error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party asserting the error to be considered by an appellate court.

5. Proof. The standard of proof for termination from drug court participation is preponderance of the evidence.

6. Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis that is not needed to adjudicate the controversy before it.

7. Appeal and Error. An appellate court may, at its discretion, discuss issues unnecessary to the disposition of an appeal where those issues are likely to recur during further proceedings.

8. Convictions: Sentences. If a drug court participant is terminated from the program or withdraws before successful completion, then the conviction stands and the case is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.