Case Law State v. Goodwin

State v. Goodwin

Document Cited Authorities (39) Cited in (95) Related

Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, for appellant.

Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Erin E. Tangeman for appellee.

HEAVICAN, C.J., and WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ.

STEPHAN, J.

After giving a statement to police in which he admitted firing shots which killed a 6-year-old girl, Jordan M. Goodwin was charged in the district court for Douglas County with first degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Goodwin was 14 years 3 months of age at the time of the shooting. The district court denied Goodwin's motion to transfer his case to juvenile court and Goodwin's motion to suppress a statement he gave to police. Goodwin was tried before a jury. His defense was that he fired the fatal shots, but that he did so without the intent to kill and was therefore guilty only of manslaughter. After the jury received a step instruction which permitted it to find Goodwin guilty of first degree murder, guilty of second degree murder, guilty of manslaughter, or not guilty, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of second degree murder. The jury also found Goodwin guilty of the related weapons charge. The court entered judgment on the convictions and sentenced Goodwin to 50 to 50 years' imprisonment on the second degree murder conviction and to a consecutive term of 10 to 10 years' imprisonment on the weapons charge, with credit given for time served. This is Goodwin's direct appeal.

I. BACKGROUND

The fatal shooting occurred in the late afternoon of October 5, 2007, outside an Omaha residence. The exact circumstances of the shooting were disputed at trial. Generally, however, the record shows that on the day of the shooting, Goodwin, who had previously run away from an enhanced treatment group home where he had been placed following a juvenile court delinquency adjudication, was living in a rented duplex with two adults to whom he was not related. All three sold drugs out of the residence.

Earlier in the afternoon of the shooting, Goodwin was involved in an argument with Maya Mack in the presence of several other persons who were gathered in a garage near Mack's home. At one point during the argument. Goodwin pointed a handgun in Mack's direction. Mack told him not to point the gun at her unless he planned to use it, and a witness to the argument told Mack not to worry because the gun was not loaded. Mack then threw a container of spray paint at Goodwin. After Mack left the gathering, Goodwin told another person who was present that he needed ammunition for the handgun.

Later that afternoon, Mack was driven by her stepsister, Alexis Holford, to a home located in Mack's neighborhood for the purpose of buying marijuana. Mack's friend Brianna Russ and 6-year-old Alazia Alford were also passengers in the vehicle driven by Holford. As Holford's vehicle arrived, a vehicle driven by Michael Coleman, in which Goodwin and another person were passengers, pulled out of a parking space behind the house and parked nearby. Holford parked in the vacated parking space, and Mack and Russ exited the vehicle and began walking toward the rear entrance of the house. As she walked, Mack shouted something to Goodwin and Coleman, who were still in their vehicle. Moments later, Mack and Russ heard gunfire, and Mack turned to see Goodwin standing outside the vehicle and shooting at them. Both women were struck by gunshots, Russ in the left leg and Mack in the left arm. Neither was seriously injured. Holford, who was still seated in the vehicle, also observed Goodwin shooting. Immediately after the shots were fired, Coleman and Goodwin left the scene in the vehicle driven by Coleman.

At least two of the shots fired by Goodwin entered the rear window of the vehicle which Mack and Russ had exited, striking and killing Alford. The record generally reflects that Goodwin did not know that Alford was in the vehicle at the time of the shooting. Before giving her own statement to police, Russ called Goodwin and informed him that he had "killed the little girl." He responded that he had not intended to do so.

Additional background information will be included in our discussion of each of Goodwin's assignments of error.

II. ANALYSIS
1. MOTION TO TRANSFER TO JUVENILE COURT
(a) ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

Shortly after charges were filed, Goodwin filed a motion requesting the district court to waive jurisdiction and transfer the case to the separate juvenile court. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the motion. The evidence presented at that hearing reflects that Goodwin was born on June 23, 1993. In June 2004, he was charged in juvenile court with third degree arson, a misdemeanor, and placed on juvenile diversion. In 2006, after he was charged in juvenile court with disorderly conduct, Goodwin was referred for a comprehensive child and adolescent assessment, which was conducted in October 2006 by Visinet, Inc. The evaluators noted that Goodwin had an extensive history of behavior problems in school and at home, where he lived with his grandmother. He admitted use of alcohol on an episodic basis and daily use of marijuana. The evaluators recommended therapeutic foster care placement, a regular substance abuse education course, and placement in an alternative school program due to his "history of aggressive and noncompliant behavior at school."

Goodwin was reevaluated by Visinet in March 2007 after being charged with use of a weapon to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. At that time, Goodwin was being held at the Douglas County Youth Center. Evaluators recommended that Goodwin participate "in an enhanced treatment group home program that will address his behavioral concerns while providing him with increased structure and ongoing supervision." The Office of Juvenile Services (OJS) took custody of Goodwin and placed him in a group home, where he received individual and group therapy, saw a psychologist, and received chemical dependency counseling. On two occasions, Goodwin did not return to the group home after receiving weekend passes, requiring issuance of capias warrants to secure his return.

On approximately September 5, 2007, Goodwin again ran away from the group home. After this, a group home therapist noted that Goodwin's whereabouts were unknown and that he "will need a locked facility until he is ready to positively function in the community once again. He will also need to be checked for chemical abuse."

On September 18, 2007, Goodwin was apprehended on a shoplifting charge and placed in a juvenile youth center in Council Bluffs, Iowa, pending transport back to Nebraska. During transport on September 21, Goodwin told the transportation officer that he needed to use the restroom; when he was allowed to do so, he escaped. Goodwin's OJS caseworker reestablished contact with him after his arrest following the shooting, and she saw him monthly at the Douglas County Youth Center, where he was held. She testified that Goodwin was "[u]nfriendly" and "very rude and disrespectful" during these visits and that he blamed her for the fatal shooting.

Grady Porter, the chief deputy probation officer in Douglas County, testified that when a juvenile is adjudicated in a delinquency case, he or she can be placed on probation, placed with the Department of Health and Human Services, placed with OJS, or committed to a secure juvenile correctional facility. Porter testified that commitment to a secure facility is for an indefinite period and that the longest stay in such a facility that he was aware of was approximately 18 months. Porter was unaware of any facility that would accept a juvenile adjudicated of first or second degree murder.

In its written order denying Goodwin's motion to transfer, the district court found, after examining all the relevant factors, that Goodwin's contacts with the juvenile system had not resulted in his rehabilitation and that the best interests of the public required keeping him in custody beyond the period of his minority.

(b) ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

Goodwin contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to transfer his case to the separate juvenile court. A trial court's denial of a motion to transfer a pending criminal proceeding to the juvenile court is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.1

(c) DISPOSITION

The district court and the separate juvenile court have concurrent jurisdiction over felony prosecutions of a juvenile, defined as a person who is under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged criminal act.2 When a felony charge against a juvenile is filed in district court, the juvenile may file a motion requesting that court to waive its jurisdiction to the juvenile court for further proceedings under the Nebraska Juvenile Code.3 The district court "shall" transfer the case unless a sound basis exists for retaining jurisdiction.4 The burden of proving a sound basis for retention lies with the State.5

At the time the district court considered Goodwin's motion, it was statutorily required to consider the following factors:

(1) The type of treatment such juvenile would most likely be amenable to; (2) whether there is evidence that the alleged offense included violence or was committed in an aggressive and premeditated manner; (3) the motivation for the commission of the offense; (4) the age of the juvenile and the ages and circumstances of any others involved in the offense; (5) the previous history of the juvenile, including whether he or she had been convicted of any previous offenses or adjudicated in juvenile court and, if so, whether such offenses were crimes against the person or relating to property, and other previous history of antisocial behavior, if any, including any patterns of physical violence; (6...

5 cases
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2016
State v. Hinrichsen
"...(7th Cir.2013).83 Id. at 559.84 Id. citing Smith, supra note 50.85 Smith, supra note 1.86 See Martin, supra note 47.87 State v. Goodwin, 278 Neb. 945, 774 N.W.2d 733 (2009).88 See State v. Nolan, 283 Neb. 50, 807 N.W.2d 520 (2012).89 Smith, supra note 1, 284 Neb. at 656, 822 N.W.2d at 417.9..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2016
State v. Smith
"...(2012) ; State v. Smith, 282 Neb. 720, 806 N.W.2d 383 (2011) ; State v. Boppre, 280 Neb. 774, 790 N.W.2d 417 (2010) ; State v. Goodwin, 278 Neb. 945, 774 N.W.2d 733 (2009) ; State v. Lotter, 278 Neb. 466, 771 N.W.2d 551 (2009).11 See, State v. Payan, 277 Neb. 663, 765 N.W.2d 192 (2009) ; St..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2022
State v. Miller
"...State v. Grant , 293 Neb. 163, 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016). See Jackson v. Denno, supra note 2.53 Garner, supra note 8.54 State v. Goodwin , 278 Neb. 945, 774 N.W.2d 733 (2009).55 See, State v. Hernandez , 299 Neb. 896, 911 N.W.2d 524 (2018) ; Grant, supra note 52 ; State v. Dubray , 289 Neb. 208..."
Document | Connecticut Court of Appeals – 2011
State v. Alonzo, 30725.
"...v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61, 64 (1st Cir.1982) (referring to acquittal first jury instruction as “well-established”); State v. Goodwin, 278 Neb. 945, 965–66, 774 N.W.2d 733 (2009) (concluding that acquittal first instructions are not constitutionally deficient); People v. Boettcher, 69 N.Y.2d 17..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2017
State v. Burries
"...Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010), citing Miranda , supra note 1.23 State v. Goodwin, 278 Neb. 945, 956, 774 N.W.2d 733, 743 (2009). Accord Fernando-Granados , supra note 22.24 See, e.g., Berghuis , supra note 22, 560 U.S. at 386-87, 130 S.Ct. 2250..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2016
State v. Hinrichsen
"...(7th Cir.2013).83 Id. at 559.84 Id. citing Smith, supra note 50.85 Smith, supra note 1.86 See Martin, supra note 47.87 State v. Goodwin, 278 Neb. 945, 774 N.W.2d 733 (2009).88 See State v. Nolan, 283 Neb. 50, 807 N.W.2d 520 (2012).89 Smith, supra note 1, 284 Neb. at 656, 822 N.W.2d at 417.9..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2016
State v. Smith
"...(2012) ; State v. Smith, 282 Neb. 720, 806 N.W.2d 383 (2011) ; State v. Boppre, 280 Neb. 774, 790 N.W.2d 417 (2010) ; State v. Goodwin, 278 Neb. 945, 774 N.W.2d 733 (2009) ; State v. Lotter, 278 Neb. 466, 771 N.W.2d 551 (2009).11 See, State v. Payan, 277 Neb. 663, 765 N.W.2d 192 (2009) ; St..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2022
State v. Miller
"...State v. Grant , 293 Neb. 163, 876 N.W.2d 639 (2016). See Jackson v. Denno, supra note 2.53 Garner, supra note 8.54 State v. Goodwin , 278 Neb. 945, 774 N.W.2d 733 (2009).55 See, State v. Hernandez , 299 Neb. 896, 911 N.W.2d 524 (2018) ; Grant, supra note 52 ; State v. Dubray , 289 Neb. 208..."
Document | Connecticut Court of Appeals – 2011
State v. Alonzo, 30725.
"...v. Moccia, 681 F.2d 61, 64 (1st Cir.1982) (referring to acquittal first jury instruction as “well-established”); State v. Goodwin, 278 Neb. 945, 965–66, 774 N.W.2d 733 (2009) (concluding that acquittal first instructions are not constitutionally deficient); People v. Boettcher, 69 N.Y.2d 17..."
Document | Nebraska Supreme Court – 2017
State v. Burries
"...Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010), citing Miranda , supra note 1.23 State v. Goodwin, 278 Neb. 945, 956, 774 N.W.2d 733, 743 (2009). Accord Fernando-Granados , supra note 22.24 See, e.g., Berghuis , supra note 22, 560 U.S. at 386-87, 130 S.Ct. 2250..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex