LINCOLN (AP) - The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday upheld the conviction of a man who killed his estranged wife in 1997 by setting her afire.
Francis Seberger was found guilty of dousing Debbie Seberger with gasoline and setting her on fire at her Papillion home on May 31, 1997. She died a month later.
Francis Seberger was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.
The high court found that he told authorities he had sprayed Debbie with gasoline, "although he did not clearly admit to igniting the gasoline."
At issue were statements Seberger made after being taken into custody at the scene of the fire and at a hospital where he was treated for burns.
Seberger made incriminating comments to and within earshot of rescue personnel at his home. Those statements were ruled inadmissible at his trial because he had not been informed of his rights.
The trial court, however, allowed statements Seberger made during interrogations at the hospital and at the Papillion police station in the following days. The court found that Seberger's statements were "the product of routine police interrogations after Seberger waived his Miranda rights."
In Seberger's appeal to the Supreme Court, his attorneys did not argue that his statements were involuntary. They argued that the trial court failed to determine whether they were made voluntarily and thus could be used against him.
The high court rejected that argument, saying the lower court's discussion of the statements were sufficient and in line with precedents.
Seberger's appellate lawyers also said his trial lawyer was ineffective because the lawyer had advised Seberger to waive his right to a jury trial, advised him not to testify and didn't offer evidence that Seberger's estranged wife sold candles that could have ignited the gasoline.
The high court said the trial record was insufficient to evaluate whether Seberger's trial lawyer was ineffective.
One of Seberger's appellate lawyers, Jeff Pickens, declined to comment Friday directly on the Supreme Court ruling. He said Seberger could file a motion for post-conviction relief saying his constitutional rights were abridged.
If a judge were to grant a hearing, Seberger would have a chance to establish a record sufficient to determine whether his trial counsel was indeed ineffective, Pickens said.
He did not know whether Seberger would file such a motion.
On the Net:
Nebraska Judicial Branch: http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov
Copyright ©2012 Omaha World-Herald®. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, displayed or redistributed for any purpose without permission from the Omaha World-Herald.
