State v. Jacob

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Steven Jacob’s motion for forensic DNA testing under Nebraska’s DNA Testing Act and his related requests for appointed counsel and to alter or amend the judgment. The court held that testing the shell casings, cartridge, and potential biological evidence would not produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to Jacob’s wrongful-conviction claim. The court also rejected Jacob’s challenge concerning the bill of exceptions.

Holdings

1. The district court properly denied DNA testing because the requested testing would not produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to Jacob's wrongful-conviction claim.
2. The nonpresence of an individual's DNA profile in a biological sample does not preclude that individual from having been present or possessing the tested item; it shows only that the individual's DNA was not present in the specific sample tested.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appointment of counsel because Jacob failed to show that DNA testing may be relevant to his wrongful-conviction claim.
4. Even assuming the district court erred by deeming Jacob's motion to alter or amend abandoned for failure to comply with the local hearing-notice rule, Jacob was not deprived of a substantial right because the Supreme Court independently concluded that denial of DNA testing was proper.
5. Jacob's bill-of-exceptions arguments were meritless because the bill of exceptions had been filed, contained the materials from the DNA-testing hearings, and the prior trial records remained part of the case and available for review.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Jacob's motion for DNA testing under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4120(5)(c).
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying appointment of counsel under the Nebraska DNA Testing Act.
3. Whether the district court erred or abused its discretion in deeming Jacob's motion to alter or amend abandoned and denying it.
4. Whether the district court failed to provide the correct bill of exceptions for appellate review.

Disposition

affirmed