The Nebraska Supreme Court continues to deal with the fallout from its 1998 ruling that some say muddied the definition of second-degree murder.

The high court on Friday rejected an appeal by Clifford Davlin, who was sentenced to life in prison for the second-degree murder of his pregnant girlfriend, 27-year-old Tammi Ligenza.

Her badly burned body was found Sept. 7, 1993, on a bed in a Lincoln duplex she shared with Davlin, now 53.

A jury also found Davlin guilty of first-degree arson, for which he was sentenced to 20 to 60 years in prison.

Davlin’s appeal had its genesis from the high court’s 1998 ruling in the case of Gary Burlison — a name now embedded in the lexicon of Nebraska’s judges, defense lawyers and prosecutors.

Burlison was serving a sentence from Dakota County for kidnapping, burglary, escape, robbery, theft, and aiding and abetting second-degree murder.

Burlison filed an appeal — without the help of a lawyer — that resulted in a ruling by the Supreme Court that reversed the court’s 1994 decision that had freed 21 convicted murderers from prison.

At the core of the matter was a law that took effect in 1979 and revised the definition of second-degree murder from an act committed “purposely and maliciously, but without deliberation and premeditation” to an act committed “intentionally but without premeditation.”

Lawmakers said their intent was to distinguish the charge from first-degree murder and make it easier to win convictions.

But the 1994 ruling said that the word “malice” must be included in proving second-degree murder or it could not be distinguished from manslaughter.

Without including malice, the court said, police or executioners who kill in the line of duty could be charged with second-degree murder.

In explaining its about-face in 1998, the court said, “the only elements of murder in the second degree are those which the Legislature included … namely, the causation of death intentionally but without premeditation.”

Many lawyers say the 1998 ruling muddied the line between second-degree murder and manslaughter, which is defined as killing a person “without malice … upon a sudden quarrel.”

In 2002, the high court ordered Davlin retried because Lancaster County District Judge Paul Merritt Jr. incorrectly instructed jurors on second-degree murder.

At Davlin’s second trial, jurors were given the new instructions on second-degree murder.

Defense lawyers Scott Helvie and Matthew Graff argued that Davlin’s first jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted “without malice.”

“Permitting a second jury to determine that the appellant intentionally caused the death … after the first jury concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, the opposite … constitutes a violation of the appellant’s right to be free from double jeopardy.”

The Supreme Court rejected that claim and several others raised by Davlin.