The Nebraska Supreme Court issued an opinion in *State v. Jackson* on January 2, 2026, providing crucial guidance on judicial discretion in criminal sentencing and probationary matters. The case, designated No. S-25-054 and cited as 320 Neb. 609, addresses fundamental questions about trial court authority and appellate review standards that will impact criminal cases across Nebraska.

The court's opinion establishes several key legal principles that will guide future criminal proceedings. Most significantly, the court reaffirmed that when a statute uses the word "may," it generally creates a presumption of permissive or discretionary action rather than mandatory requirements. This interpretation gives trial courts greater flexibility in applying statutory provisions while maintaining consistency with established legal precedent.

In addressing probationary matters specifically, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that such decisions are entrusted to the discretion of trial courts. This ruling reinforces the principle that trial judges, who observe defendants firsthand and have access to comprehensive case information, are best positioned to make individualized determinations about probation terms and conditions. The decision limits the scope of appellate review in probationary matters, requiring appellants to meet higher standards when challenging trial court decisions.

The court also clarified the standard for finding abuse of discretion in sentencing appeals. According to the opinion, an abuse of discretion occurs when "the sentencing court's reasons or rulings are clearly untenable and unfairly deprive a litigant of a substantial right and a just result." This standard provides clearer guidance for appellate courts reviewing sentencing decisions while maintaining appropriate deference to trial court judgment.

Regarding appellate procedure, the court addressed the doctrine of plain error, which allows appellate courts to correct obvious mistakes even when not properly raised below. The court held that plain error may be found when an error that was "unasserted or uncomplained of below, but plainly evident from the record, prejudicially affects a litigant's substantial right and, if uncorrected, would result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fairness of the judicial process."

The opinion also touched on jurisdictional requirements for appeals, reaffirming that appellate courts can only acquire jurisdiction when there is a final order or final judgment from the lower court. This requirement ensures that appeals are taken at appropriate procedural stages and prevents premature appellate intervention in ongoing proceedings.

In a notable clarification of terminology, the court held that post-release supervision constitutes a form of probation. This determination may have significant implications for defendants subject to post-release supervision, potentially affecting their rights and obligations under probationary statutes.

The court emphasized fundamental principles of statutory interpretation, noting that such analysis "begins with the text and that statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning." This approach reinforces the primacy of textual analysis in judicial decision-making and provides predictability for legal practitioners interpreting statutes.

While the complete details of the underlying case facts are not available in the court's preliminary materials, the legal principles established in *Jackson* will have far-reaching effects on Nebraska's criminal justice system. Defense attorneys will need to carefully consider the heightened standards for challenging probationary decisions and sentencing determinations on appeal.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, will benefit from clearer guidance on the scope of trial court discretion and the circumstances required to establish abuse of discretion claims. The ruling provides greater certainty about which trial court decisions are likely to withstand appellate scrutiny.

For trial judges, the decision offers important clarification about the extent of their discretionary authority while reinforcing their central role in making individualized determinations about probation and sentencing. The opinion validates the trial court's position as the primary decision-maker in these critical areas of criminal law.

The *Jackson* decision represents a significant development in Nebraska criminal law, particularly in the areas of sentencing and appellate procedure. By clarifying standards for discretionary decision-making and abuse of discretion review, the court has provided valuable guidance that will influence criminal cases throughout the state.

Legal practitioners should carefully review the complete opinion when it becomes available to understand the full scope of the court's holdings and their potential applications in future cases. The decision's emphasis on statutory interpretation principles and procedural requirements will likely be cited in numerous subsequent criminal appeals.