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.

Marie v. State

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 8, 2019

Charlene Marie, appellant,
v.
State of Nebraska, appellee.

         1. Motions to Dismiss: Appeal and Error.

         A district court's grant of a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo.

         2.___:___. When reviewing an order dismissing a complaint, an appellate court accepts as true all facts which are well pled and the proper and reasonable inferences of law and fact which may be drawn therefrom, but not the plaintiff's conclusions.

         3. Motions to Dismiss: Pleadings.

         To prevail against a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that it plausible on its face.

         4. Judgments: Jurisdiction: Claim Preclusion.

         Claim preclusion bars relitigation of any right, fact, or matter directly addressed or necessarily included in a former adjudication if (1) the former judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the former judgment was a final judgment, (3) the former judgment was on the merits, and (4) the same parties or their privies were involved in both actions.

         5. Claim Preclusion.

         The doctrine of claim preclusion bars relitigation not only of those matters actually litigated, but also of those matters which might have been litigated in the prior action.

         6.___ . The doctrine of claim preclusion rests on the necessity to terminate litigation and on the belief that a person should not be vexed twice for the same cause.

          Appeal from the District Court for Sheridan County: Travis P. O'Gorman, Judge.

          Daniel H. Friedman and Stephen A. Sael, of Friedman Law Offices, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

         [302 Neb. 218] Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Danielle Rowley for appellee.

          Joshua I. Schwartz, of George Washington University Law School, Sarah P. Newell, of Nebraska Criminal Defense Attorneys Association, and Amy Miller, of American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska Foundation, for amici curiae Professor Joshua I. Schwartz et al.

          HEAVICAN, C.J., MILLER-LERMAN, CASSEL, STACY, FUNKE, AND PAPIK, JJ.

          HEAVICAN, C.J.

         INTRODUCTION

         Charlene Marie filed a claim for damages under the Nebraska Claims for Wrongful Conviction and Imprisonment Act (Act).[1]That claim was denied. Marie appeals. At issue on appeal is whether Marie can show that she was innocent of the crimes, as required by § 29-4603(3). We affirm.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         Marie was convicted in 1999 for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony and terroristic threats. She was sentenced to 2 to 15 years' imprisonment for the use conviction and 2 to 5 years' imprisonment for the terroristic threats conviction. The alleged victim of her crimes was Marie's husband, Kurt Oldenburg.

         Marie appealed her sentences as excessive, and the Nebraska Court of Appeals agreed and resentenced her to 1 year's imprisonment on each conviction.[2] Because Marie had already served 2 years' imprisonment, she was released.[3] Marie was later pardoned by the Nebraska Board of Pardons on October 3, 2016.

         [302 Neb. 219] Marie then filed a petition seeking damages under the Act. In that motion, Marie alleged that she was convicted, sentenced, served part of her sentence, and was pardoned and that she did not commit or suborn perjury, fabricate evidence, or knowingly make a false statement to cause her own conviction or the conviction of others.

         Marie alleged that she was "actually innocent of the crimes for which she was wrongfully charged, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned [and that she] did not threaten to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize." She further alleged that Oldenburg "lunged toward [her] and [as] she attempted to move the gun away[, he] grabbed [her] arm and the gun . . . discharged, injuring . . . Oldenburg [which] forced [her] to take the actions that she did."

         The State filed a motion to dismiss. At issue before the district court was whether Marie had, or could, show that she was innocent of the crimes for which she was charged, as required by § 29-4601(3). The Sheridan County District Court concluded that Marie could not ...


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.