Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Herman D. Buckman’s proceeding under the Nebraska DNA Testing Act. The court held that testing results excluding Buckman as the source of semen were not material to the murder and weapons convictions, while testing of other evidence was inconclusive. Because the results did not exonerate or exculpate Buckman or likely produce a substantially different trial result, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the postconviction DNA testing results exonerated or exculpated Buckman under the Nebraska DNA Testing Act.
- Whether the DNA results were sufficiently exculpatory that they probably would have produced a substantially different result at trial and therefore warranted a new trial.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by sustaining the State's motion to dismiss after completion of the DNA testing.
Holdings
- A motion to dismiss a DNA Testing Act proceeding after testing has been completed is committed to the trial court's discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion; related factual findings are reviewed for clear error.
- DNA test results that are inculpatory, inconclusive, or immaterial to the issue of guilt do not entitle a person to relief under the DNA Testing Act.
- Exclusion of Buckman as the source of semen found on the victim was not exculpatory evidence material to the charged murder and weapon offenses because Buckman was not charged with sexual assault and the semen evidence was not central to the prosecution's case.
- The DNA testing results did not exonerate or materially exculpate Buckman and were not of such a nature that they probably would have produced a substantially different result if offered at trial; the district court therefore properly dismissed the proceeding and denied further relief.
Key quotations
“[T]he court may vacate and set aside the judgment in circumstances where the DNA testing results are either completely exonerative or highly exculpatory—when the results, when considered with the evidence of the case which resulted in the underlying judgment, show a complete lack of evidence to establish an essential element of the crime charged.” (311 Neb. at 314)
“Postconviction DNA evidence that does not falsify or discredit evidence that was necessary to prove an essential element of the crime does not exonerate the movant.” (311 Neb. at 315)
“If DNA testing does not detect the presence of a prisoner's DNA on an item of evidence, such result is at best inconclusive, especially when there is other credible evidence tying the defendant to the crime.” (311 Neb. at 318)
Factual background
In 1988, Denise Stawkowski was found dead from two gunshot wounds, and evidence at trial linked Buckman to the crime through a possible motive, possession of a same-caliber firearm, missing drugs and money, clothing and slippers near the scene, cigarette evidence, blood evidence, and a cellmate's testimony that Buckman confessed. In the present proceeding, testing of the steering wheel cover and floormats from Buckman's car detected no blood or yielded uninterpretable partial DNA profiles, while testing of Stawkowski's panties produced a sperm-donor profile that excluded Buckman as the major contributor. The testing did not contradict the other substantial circumstantial evidence supporting the convictions.
Procedural history
Buckman was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony in connection with Denise Stawkowski's murder, and his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. His earlier postconviction and DNA-testing proceedings also resulted in denials of relief that were affirmed. In the present proceeding, the district court authorized testing of Stawkowski's panties, the steering wheel cover, and floormats from Buckman's car. After testing produced results that were inconclusive as to the vehicle items and excluded Buckman as the major semen contributor, the State moved to dismiss; the district court sustained the motion, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.