Pleadings. Issues regarding the grant or denial of a
plea in bar are questions of law.
Judgments: Appeal and Error. On a question of law,
an appellate court reaches a conclusion independent of the
Evidence: Appeal and Error. The overruling of a
motion in limine is not a final ruling on the admissibility
of evidence and does not present a question for appellate
Double Jeopardy. The Double Jeopardy Clauses of both
the federal and Nebraska Constitutions protect against three
distinct abuses: (1) a second prosecution for the same
offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the
same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments
for the same offense.
Appeal and Error. Under the law-of-the-case
doctrine, the holdings of an appellate court on questions
presented to it in reviewing proceedings of the trial court
become the law of the case; those holdings conclusively
settle, for purposes of that litigation, all matters ruled
upon, either expressly or by necessary implication.
Actions: Appeal and Error. The law-of-the-case
doctrine operates to preclude a reconsideration of
substantially similar, if not identical, issues at successive
stages of the same suit or prosecution. Matters previously
addressed in an appellate court are not reconsidered unless
the petitioner presents materially and substantially
from the District Court for Lancaster County: Andrew R.
Jacobsen, Judge. Affirmed and remanded for further
Neb. 238] Joseph D. Nigro, Lancaster County Public Defender,
Webb E. Bancroft, John C. Jorgensen, and Katherine Lesiak,
Senior Certified Law Student, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Kimberly A. Klein
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Kelch, and FUNKE, JJ.
H. Lavalleur appeals from an order denying his second plea in
bar, asserting a double jeopardy violation. But Lavalleur
does not challenge the operative information; rather, he
seeks advance review of evidence that may be offered upon
retrial. Because there have been no final evidentiary
rulings, this issue lies outside of the scope of our
jurisdiction over this appeal. We affirm the district
court's denial of Lavalleur's plea in bar.
the third time this case has been before this court on appeal
and the second time Lavalleur has entered a plea in bar on
double jeopardy grounds. Because a thorough factual
background is already chronicled in our 2014 and
opinions in this case, only those facts relevant to this
appeal will be repeated.
State originally charged Lavalleur with first degree sexual
assault (digital penetration) and attempted first degree
sexual assault (penile penetration). The attempted first
degree sexual assault charge alleged that Lavalleur "did
attempt to subject [the victim] to sexual penetration without
Neb. 239] After a jury trial, Lavalleur was acquitted of
first degree sexual assault and convicted of attempted first
degree sexual assault. Lavalleur appealed this conviction,
and we reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new
trial after finding ...