A-21-0594, State of Nebraska v. Adris K. Khalaf (Appellant)
District Court for Lancaster County, District Judge Susan I. Strong
Attorney for Appellant: Angelica W. McClure (Kotik & McClure Law)
Attorney for Appellee: Matthew Lewis (Attorney General’s Office)
Criminal Action: Burglary
Charges and Pretrial Proceedings: The State initially charged Khalaf with one count of burglary (based on the allegation that Khalaf broke into the first victim’s residence with the intent to commit the felony of first degree sexual assault) and one count of violation of the Sex Offender Registration Act (this count was severed and tried separately; the jury found Khalaf not guilty).
The State filed an amended information adding a second burglary count (based on the allegation that Khalaf broke into the second victim’s residence with the intent to steal property of any value) and a count of public indecency (based on certain incidents by Khalaf at an apartment swimming pool and in the police interview room).
Trial, Conviction, and Sentencing: A jury trial was held on the public indecency count and both burglary counts. The public indecency count was dismissed before submission to the jury based upon the trial court’s determination that the charged incident related to the incident in the police interview room, which was not a public place. The jury found Khalaf guilty on both burglary counts. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment of 6 to 12 years on the first burglary count and 4 to 8 years on the second burglary count.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of other sexualized behavior under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(2)? Did the trial court err in not severing trial on the public indecency count from the jury trial on the burglary counts? Was the evidence was insufficient to support Khalaf’s conviction on the burglary counts? Was Khalaf’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to (a) provide him with the discovery and investigative reports which prevented him from making an informed decision about whether to have a trial or to aid in his own defense, (b) explain what defense he could raise, and as such, he was unable to make an informed decision on whether to have a trial or to enter a plea to the charged offense, and (c) prepare a defense to the charge, in particular, to depose any witnesses including the victim prior to trial and to call any witnesses to counter such evidence?
On appeal, Khalaf argues that the court should not have admitted evidence of the incidents at the swimming pool and police interview room and that the court should have granted his motion to sever trial of the public indecency count from the trial of the burglary counts. He also argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of both counts of burglary. He specifically challenges the evidence of his intent to commit either burglary. Finally, he argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in various ways.