State v. Blackwell

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Blackwell

214 N.W.2d 264, 191 Neb. 155, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 825

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 18, 1974

Docket39144

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 214 N.W.2d 264 (State v. Blackwell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Blackwell, 214 N.W.2d 264, 191 Neb. 155, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 825 (Neb. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

Smith, J.

Seth E. Blackwell moved the District Court for post conviction relief on two grounds. First, at the time of the jury trial that led to his conviction and sentence he was mentally incompetent to stand trial. Second, isolation and restraint imposed upon him during the jury trial violated Article I, sections 3 and 11, of the Nebraska Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. After an evidentiary hearing the court overruled the motion, and Blackwell appeals.

The District Court might properly find as follows. During the period of 1% months immediately prior to the jury trial the behavior of Blackwell was extraordinary. He removed his handcuffs by his own strength, [156]*156barricaded his cell, destroyed “everything in the room,” and assaulted his lawyer. He was gassed severely with tear gas.

At the jury trial and upon request of defense counsel, Blackwell was seated 5 feet away from the counsel table, 3 feet away from the second chair, and between two deputy sheriffs. The request was made because of the tendency in Blackwell for belligerence. Blackwell in conversation with counsel dissented mildly. Two outbursts by him disrupted the trial. He possessed the opportunity to communicate effectively with his counsel by notifying a deputy sheriff that he wished to speak with counsel. Such notice was conveyed on several occasions. Defense counsel at no time was denied the right to converse with Blackwell during the trial, and they conversed several times. In respect to the seating arrangement no cautionary instruction was given to the jury. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings under review in respect to the seating arrangement and the opportunity for effective client-counsel communication beneficial to Blackwell.

In the absence of a violation of a constitutional right, no relief may be had under the Post Conviction Act. State v. Whited, 187 Neb. 592, 193 N. W. 2d 268 (1971).

The order denying the post conviction motion was correct.

Affirmed.

Adopted by the Court before January 1, 1974.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Smith, J.

Seth E. Blackwell moved the District Court for post conviction relief on two grounds. First, at the time of the jury trial that led to his conviction and sentence he was mentally incompetent to stand trial. Second, isolation and restraint imposed upon him during the jury trial violated Article I, sections 3 and 11, of the Nebraska Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. After an evidentiary hearing the court overruled the motion, and Blackwell appeals.

The District Court might properly find as follows. During the period of 1% months immediately prior to the jury trial the behavior of Blackwell was extraordinary. He removed his handcuffs by his own strength, [156]*156barricaded his cell, destroyed “everything in the room,” and assaulted his lawyer. He was gassed severely with tear gas.

At the jury trial and upon request of defense counsel, Blackwell was seated 5 feet away from the counsel table, 3 feet away from the second chair, and between two deputy sheriffs. The request was made because of the tendency in Blackwell for belligerence. Blackwell in conversation with counsel dissented mildly. Two outbursts by him disrupted the trial. He possessed the opportunity to communicate effectively with his counsel by notifying a deputy sheriff that he wished to speak with counsel. Such notice was conveyed on several occasions. Defense counsel at no time was denied the right to converse with Blackwell during the trial, and they conversed several times. In respect to the seating arrangement no cautionary instruction was given to the jury. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the findings under review in respect to the seating arrangement and the opportunity for effective client-counsel communication beneficial to Blackwell.

In the absence of a violation of a constitutional right, no relief may be had under the Post Conviction Act. State v. Whited, 187 Neb. 592, 193 N. W. 2d 268 (1971).

The order denying the post conviction motion was correct.

Affirmed.

Adopted by the Court before January 1, 1974.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 N.W.2d 264, 191 Neb. 155, 1974 Neb. LEXIS 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-blackwell-neb-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack