Background
On March 10, 2024, Wah K. Say, then 19 years old, went to an Omaha park where he brandished a firearm at several individuals, demanding money or drugs. When Taw Moo refused Say’s demand, Say and his companions assaulted Moo, and Say shot him in the chest. Moo died in surgery. Say and his friends fled in a vehicle, driving recklessly at speeds up to 100 mph, running stop signs, and eventually crossing into Iowa before the vehicle ran out of gas and they were apprehended.
Say was charged with first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited juvenile offender. After a 10-day jury trial in March 2025, Say was convicted of manslaughter (Class IIA felony), two counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony (Class IC felonies), unlawful possession of a firearm by a prohibited juvenile offender (Class IV felony), terroristic threats (Class IIIA felony), and operating a motor vehicle to avoid arrest by willful reckless driving (Class IV felony).
At sentencing, the district court considered Say’s extensive juvenile criminal history—including robbery, weapons possession, attempted theft, and other offenses from 2021-2022—along with his lack of apparent remorse. The court sentenced Say to an aggregate of 80 to 107 years’ imprisonment, with all sentences ordered to run consecutively.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed Say’s convictions and sentences, rejecting his sole argument that the district court abused its discretion in imposing excessive and consecutive sentences. The court held that each individual sentence fell within the statutory limits applicable to the respective felony convictions, and thus appellate review was limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in the sentencing process itself.
The appellate court found that the district court properly considered all relevant sentencing factors, including Say’s age, criminal history, education, social background, the nature and violence of the offenses, and the permanent consequences to the victim’s family. The court noted that Say had a significant juvenile record and scored in the “very high-risk” range on multiple domains of a risk assessment instrument. The district court was entitled to emphasize that Say’s actions left the victim’s four-year-old child fatherless and destroyed the family unit.
The Court of Appeals rejected Say’s arguments that the court failed to consider mitigating factors or that it improperly relied on information in the presentence investigation report. The court emphasized that sentencing judges have significant discretion to order sentences consecutively or concurrently, and that appellate courts do not conduct de novo review of sentences or reweigh sentencing factors.
Key Takeaways
- Trial courts have substantial discretion in sentencing within statutory limits; appellate courts review such decisions only for abuse of discretion
- Consecutive sentences are permissible when the trial court exercises its discretion within statutory parameters
- A sentencing court need not articulate on the record that it considered each sentencing factor or specify the weight assigned to each
- Presentence investigation reports, including victim impact statements and police characterizations of the defendant’s dangerousness, may properly inform sentencing decisions
- Extensive juvenile criminal history and high risk-assessment scores provide substantial support for substantial adult sentences
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the limited scope of appellate review in criminal sentencing cases. By affirming that trial courts need not articulate specific consideration of each sentencing factor, the court provides trial judges with substantial flexibility in imposing sentences within statutory bounds. The decision reinforces that once sentences fall within the statutory range, appellate reversal is unlikely absent a clear abuse of discretion.
The case also demonstrates how courts may weight the permanent, irreversible consequences of violent crimes—particularly the destruction of a victim’s family and the impact on surviving dependents—as factors supporting substantial sentences. For defendants with significant juvenile criminal histories, the decision shows that such background can heavily influence adult sentencing, even without explicit statutory enhancements.