Opinion ID: 2099163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: electrocution as means of execution

Text: [10] Dunster's fifth assignment of error is that the court erred in finding that his challenge to the constitutionality of electrocution, as a means of execution, was procedurally barred. As a technical matter, the district court's conclusion was correct. [18] But as a practical matter, Dunster's argument is moot. [11] A case becomes moot when the issues initially presented in the litigation cease to exist, when the litigants lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of litigation, or when the litigants seek to determine a question which does not rest upon existing facts or rights, in which the issues presented are no longer alive. [19] We held in State v. Mata [20] that electrocution as a method of execution is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Nebraska Constitution. Obviously, the State cannot carry out Dunster's sentence without a constitutionally acceptable method of execution. [21] And electrocution is no longer the method of execution under Nebraska law. [22] Stated plainly, Dunster is no longer subject to electrocution. Therefore, we need not consider this assignment of error.