Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Daryle M. Duncan’s motion for a new trial based on DNA testing of billfolds found near the victim’s body. The court held that evidence from earlier postconviction proceedings that was not presented at trial could not be considered under the applicable DNA-based new-trial provision, and that the DNA results probably would not have produced a substantially different result at trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly refused to consider evidence presented during Duncan's earlier postconviction proceedings but not admitted at his criminal trial when evaluating his motion for a new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(6).
- Whether the newly discovered DNA testing results probably would have produced a substantially different result at Duncan's trial and therefore entitled him to a new trial.
Holdings
- In evaluating a motion under § 29-2101(6), the court may consider the newly discovered DNA or similar forensic testing evidence obtained under the DNA Testing Act together with the evidence admitted at the former trial, but not evidence that was presented only in earlier postconviction proceedings.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Duncan's motion for a new trial because the DNA results probably would not have produced a substantially different result when considered with the trial evidence.
Key quotations
“DNA evidence is not a videotape of a crime, and the nonpresence of an individual’s DNA profile in a biological sample does not preclude that individual from having been present or in possession of the item tested.” (466)
Factual background
Daryle M. Duncan was convicted of murdering Lucille Bennett and using a deadly weapon to commit a felony after Bennett was found dead in her home from a knife wound. At trial, evidence included testimony that Duncan made statements describing Bennett's murder, evidence placing him near the scene, and physical and circumstantial evidence. Later DNA testing of two billfolds found near Bennett's body did not support the conclusion that Duncan contributed DNA to the samples, although he could not be excluded from at least one billfold, and the district court concluded the results probably would not have produced a substantially different trial result.
Procedural history
Duncan was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony in 2001, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed those convictions and sentences on direct appeal. His later postconviction proceedings were denied, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed without reaching certain ineffective-assistance claims. After obtaining DNA testing of billfolds found near the victim's body, Duncan moved for a new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(6). The district court denied the motion, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.