The Nebraska Supreme Court recently weighed in on the case of Adam L. Price, who was convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of his two young children. The court affirmed the convictions but made a crucial correction to the sentencing, eliminating credit for time served.
The Case’s Origins
In May 2021, Price’s children, Emily, age 5, and Theodore, age 3, were found dead in their beds at his home in Bellevue, Nebraska, during a scheduled visitation week. The children’s mother, Mary Nielsen, who lived in Illinois, became concerned when she couldn’t reach Price or the children. Price was later located in California and subsequently charged with two counts of first-degree murder.
The Trial and Conviction
Price chose to have a jury trial. He was found guilty on both counts of first-degree murder. Following the conviction, Price filed a motion for a new trial, which the court denied.
The Appeal and Key Arguments
Price appealed the convictions, raising several arguments, including:
* The admission of 911 calls and body camera footage as unfairly prejudicial.
* The admission of statements he made to Roman Catholic priests, claiming they were privileged.
* The admission of statements made to law enforcement, arguing they were involuntary and violated his right to remain silent.
* Issues related to expanded media coverage during the trial.
* Challenges to his competency for sentencing, along with the denial of his motion for a mistrial due to an epileptic seizure he experienced during the defense’s case.
The Court’s Analysis and Decisions
The Nebraska Supreme Court addressed each of Price’s arguments, applying the appropriate standards of review.
1. Media Coverage and Jury Sequestration:
* Price argued the trial court erred by not sequestering the jury due to extensive media coverage. The Court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to sequester the jury because Price failed to show that the jury had been prejudiced by media coverage.
* Price also argued that the district court abused its discretion by overruling his motions for a mistrial and new trial based on the footage of jurors leaving the courtroom in violation of a court rule that states in part: “In all circumstances, expanded news media coverage of all summoned and/or impaneled jurors is prohibited.” The Court found that there was no abuse of discretion.
2. Admission of Evidence:
* The court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 911 calls, body camera footage and footage of the arrest.
* Price argued the body camera footage of the first officer on the scene that shows the children dead in Price’s home was irrelevant, cumulative of the testimony of several witnesses regarding their initial observations of the scene, and unduly prejudicial because the officer’s personal observations and commentary only served to inflame the passions of the jury. Price argued the body camera footage of his arrest was unduly prejudicial because it shows him on the ground with his hands behind his back.
3. Statements to Police:
* Price argued that his statements to the Pacifica and Bellevue police departments were obtained in violation of his Miranda rights. The Court found that Price had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and that he did not unambiguously invoke his right to cut off questioning.
* The court found that Price never made these simple, unambiguous statements during the Pacifica and Bellevue interviews.
4. Statements to Priests:
* Price claimed his statements to Roman Catholic priests were protected by the priest-penitent privilege. The Court determined that under California law, which both parties agreed should apply, any privilege was waived because Price consented to the disclosure.
5. Motion for Mistrial and Competency:
* Price argued that the court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial after he suffered a medical emergency during the trial. The Court found no abuse of discretion, as the jury was admonished not to consider the event in its deliberations, and there was no evidence the jury was affected.
* Price also argued that the court erred in overruling his motion to determine competency before sentencing. The Court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant a competency evaluation.
6. Sentencing Error:
* The state argued that the trial court made a plain error by giving Price credit for time served on his life sentences. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that under Nebraska precedent, credit for time served is not applicable to life sentences. The court modified the sentence to remove this credit.
Key Legal Principles Applied
The court’s decision hinged on several key legal principles:
* Standard of Review: The court applied different standards of review depending on the issue, including abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings and the denial of a mistrial, and de novo review for the sufficiency of Miranda warnings.
* Relevance and Prejudice: The court considered whether evidence was relevant and whether its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
* Miranda Rights: The court examined whether Price knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights and whether he unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent.
* Priest-Penitent Privilege: The court applied California law to determine whether Price’s communications with the priests were privileged.
* Competency: The court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to raise a doubt about Price’s competency for sentencing.
* Sentencing Errors: The court addressed the legality of the sentence, ensuring it adhered to statutory authority.
The Outcome
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Price’s convictions on two counts of first-degree murder. However, the court modified his sentence by removing the credit for time served. This modification ensures the sentence aligns with Nebraska law.