State v. Flores: Nebraska Reaffirms That Standard Aiding-and-Abetting Instructions Suffice and Juvenile De Facto Life Sentences May Stand When the Court Has Sentencing Discretion

Introduction

In State v. Flores, 321 Neb. 284, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and aggregate sentence of Mariano Flores, who was tried with codefendant Quan A. White for a series of violent offenses committed over several days in June 2021, when Flores was 15 years old.

Flores was convicted of first degree murder, robbery, assault, discharging firearms at occupied or inhabited locations, theft by receiving stolen property, and multiple counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony. The district court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 320 years’ to life imprisonment.

On appeal, Flores challenged: the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his robbery and related firearm conviction; the refusal to give a “mere presence” aiding-and-abetting jury instruction; and the constitutionality and alleged excessiveness of his sentences, particularly because they amounted to a de facto life sentence for a juvenile offender.

Summary of the Opinion

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed in full. The court held that sufficient evidence supported Flores’ robbery and firearm convictions under an aiding-and-abetting theory. Even though Flores did not personally hold the gun or directly take the vehicle from the victim, the evidence allowed a rational jury to find that he intentionally helped or encouraged the robbery.

The court also held that the district court properly refused Flores’ requested “mere presence, acquiescence, or silence” instruction. The standard Nebraska Jury Instruction on aiding and abetting, NJI2d Crim. 3.8, adequately stated the law, and additional “mere presence” language could confuse the jury.

Finally, the court rejected Flores’ sentencing arguments. It concluded that the district court considered the relevant individualized sentencing factors, including juvenile mitigation evidence, and that the aggregate sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment even if it amounted to a de facto life sentence.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. White

State v. White was identified as the companion case. White was Flores’ codefendant in the same trial and received the same aggregate sentence. The reference is important because the district court stated it was imposing the same sentence on Flores that it had imposed on White. Flores argued this showed a lack of individualized sentencing, but the Supreme Court rejected that argument after reviewing the sentencing record.

State v. Rupp

State v. Rupp supplied the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard: appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and ask whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt. This deferential standard was decisive. The court did not reweigh the evidence or decide whether it believed Flores was personally the robber; it asked whether the jury could rationally find aiding and abetting.

State v. Logan

State v. Logan was cited for two jury-instruction principles: correctness of jury instructions is reviewed independently as a question of law, and a defendant seeking reversal for refusal of a requested instruction must show the instruction was legally correct, warranted by the evidence, and prejudicially omitted.

State v. Sutton

State v. Sutton provided the abuse-of-discretion standard for review of sentences within statutory limits. Because each of Flores’ individual sentences was within the applicable statutory range, the court reviewed only for abuse of discretion.

State v. Ezell

State v. Ezell was central to sentencing review. It was cited for the factors sentencing courts must consider, including age, mentality, education, background, criminal record, motivation, nature of the offense, and violence involved. It also supported the principle that sentences should be tailored to the offender and not merely to the crime.

State v. Devers

State v. Devers explained Nebraska’s aiding-and-abetting statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-206, which abolishes the common-law distinction between a principal offender and an aider and abettor. This allowed Flores to be punished as if he were the principal robber if he intentionally assisted or encouraged the crime.

State v. Ramsay

Flores relied on State v. Ramsay, where the court had stated that mere presence, acquiescence, or silence is not enough to prove aiding and abetting. The Supreme Court acknowledged that this is a correct summary of the law but clarified that such language need not be included as a jury instruction when the standard aiding-and-abetting instruction adequately covers the issue.

State v. Haynie

State v. Haynie was the controlling jury-instruction precedent. There, the court rejected a nearly identical request to add “mere presence” language to an aiding-and-abetting instruction based on NJI2d Crim. 3.8. The court followed State v. Haynie and concluded that the standard instruction was sufficient and that the additional language risked confusing or misleading the jury.

State v. Glantz

State v. Glantz supported the concern that jury instructions cannot list every circumstance that does not amount to aiding and abetting. The court used this reasoning to reject Flores’ proposed instruction, emphasizing that instructions should state the elements the State must prove rather than catalog all insufficient forms of evidence.

State v. Jones

State v. Jones appeared in two contexts. First, it supported the principle that sentencing is a subjective judgment informed by the sentencing judge’s observations and all facts surrounding the defendant’s life. Second, it was one of the juvenile sentencing cases in which Nebraska had upheld long sentences against Eighth Amendment challenges.

State v. Ramirez, State v. Cardeilhac, and State v. Dejaynes‑Beaman

These cases formed the backbone of the court’s juvenile de facto life sentence analysis. Flores argued that his aggregate sentence was longer than those previously affirmed, but the court relied on the same governing principle: if the sentencing court had discretion to consider youth and impose a lesser sentence, a lengthy or even de facto life sentence does not automatically violate the Eighth Amendment.

State v. Trail

State v. Trail was cited for the incorporation principle: the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Eighth Amendment’s restrictions on cruel and unusual punishment to the states.

Legal Reasoning

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Flores argued that he did not personally rob the victim, did not provide the gun, and did not enter the vehicle until after it was taken. The court held that those facts were not dispositive because the State proceeded under an aiding-and-abetting theory.

The evidence showed that Flores gave Kawunda his phone, which was used as a pretext to get access to the victim’s vehicle; that White discussed robbing the victim in Flores’ presence; that a handgun was passed to Kawunda; and that Flores entered the vehicle after the robbery and left with the group. Viewed in the State’s favor, this evidence permitted a rational jury to find intentional assistance or encouragement.

Jury Instruction on Aiding and Abetting

The district court gave an instruction tracking NJI2d Crim. 3.8. Flores wanted an additional sentence stating that “mere presence, acquiescence, or silence” was insufficient.

The Supreme Court held that although the proposed language accurately reflects a legal concept, it was unnecessary and potentially confusing. The given instruction already required the jury to find intentional encouragement or help, the required intent or knowledge, and commission of the crime by another person. Because that covered the substance of the law, refusal of the additional language was not reversible error.

Sentencing and the Eighth Amendment

The court emphasized that each sentence was within statutory limits and that the sentencing judge reviewed the presentence investigation report and forensic evaluation. Those materials addressed Flores’ youth, family environment, psychological background, intellectual and developmental circumstances, and prospects for rehabilitation.

Although the district court referenced the sentence imposed on White, the Supreme Court concluded that this did not prove the absence of individualized sentencing. The court found the record sufficient to show that the judge considered Flores’ personal circumstances and statutory mitigating factors.

On cruel and unusual punishment, the court reaffirmed Nebraska precedent: a juvenile offender may constitutionally receive a sentence that amounts to life imprisonment if the sentencing court had discretion to impose a lesser sentence and considered youth-related mitigation.

Impact

State v. Flores strengthens three important points in Nebraska criminal law.

• Aiding and abetting: A defendant need not personally commit every act of a crime. Participation through encouragement, planning, or assistance may support liability as a principal.
• Jury instructions: Trial courts may rely on NJI2d Crim. 3.8 without adding “mere presence” language, even when the defense theory is that the defendant was only present.
• Juvenile sentencing: Nebraska continues to permit very long aggregate sentences for juvenile offenders, including sentences that function as life sentences, so long as the court had discretion and considered youth-related mitigation.

The decision is especially significant because Flores’ 320-years-to-life aggregate sentence exceeded the lengthy juvenile sentences previously discussed in Nebraska precedent. The court nevertheless declined to draw a constitutional line based solely on sentence length.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Aiding and Abetting

A person can be guilty of a crime even if another person performs the main criminal act, as long as the person intentionally helps or encourages the crime and intends it to happen or knows the other person intends it.

“Mere Presence”

Being at the scene of a crime, without more, is not enough for guilt. But if the evidence shows intentional help, encouragement, or participation, the jury may find aiding and abetting.

De Facto Life Sentence

A de facto life sentence is not formally “life without parole,” but it is so long that the defendant is unlikely to be released during a normal lifetime.

Abuse of Discretion

An appellate court will not change a lawful sentence unless the trial judge’s decision was unreasonable, untenable, or clearly against justice, reason, and the evidence.

Conclusion

State v. Flores affirms Flores’ convictions and 320-years-to-life sentence. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the evidence supported aiding-and-abetting liability, that the standard aiding-and-abetting jury instruction was sufficient without added “mere presence” language, and that the juvenile aggregate sentence did not violate the Eighth Amendment.

The case is significant because it reinforces Nebraska’s current approach to both accomplice liability and juvenile sentencing: standard instructions may adequately protect defendants from conviction based on mere presence, and even an extremely long juvenile sentence may be constitutional if imposed after individualized consideration and with discretion to impose a lesser punishment.