Opinion ID: 4513461
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: DNA Testing Act Pursuant to the act, a person in custody takes the first step toward obtaining possible relief by filing a motion in the court that entered the judgment requesting forensic DNA 2 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-4116 to 29-4125 (Reissue 2016). 3 State v. Myers, 301 Neb. 756, 919 N.W.2d 893 (2018). 4 Id. 5 Id. - 717 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports STATE v. ILDEFONSO Cite as 304 Neb. 711 testing of biological material.6 The court has discretion to either consider the motion on affidavits or hold a hearing.7 Under § 29-4120(5), the court shall order DNA testing upon a determination that (a)(i) the biological material was not previously subjected to DNA testing or (ii) the biological material was tested previously, but current technology could provide a reasonable likelihood of more accurate and probative results, (b) the biological material has been retained under circumstances likely to safeguard the integrity of its original physical composition, and (c) such testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to the claim that the person was wrongfully convicted or sentenced. Under the act, “exculpatory evidence means evidence which is favorable to the person in custody and material to the issue of the guilt of the person in custody.”8 Denial of Motion for DNA Testing Part of the defendant’s burden of proof is to provide the court with affidavits or evidence at a hearing establishing the three required factual determinations under § 29-4120(5).9 We have recognized that the showing needed to satisfy the requirement that DNA testing may produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence is “relatively undemanding . . . and will generally preclude testing only where the evidence at issue would have no bearing on the guilt or culpability of the movant.”10 Although the threshold to obtain DNA testing is rather low, we 6 State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 299 Neb. 775, 910 N.W.2d 164 (2018). 7 Id. 8 § 29-4119. 9 See State v. Young, 287 Neb. 749, 844 N.W.2d 304 (2014). 10 State v. Buckman, 267 Neb. 505, 515, 675 N.W.2d 372, 381 (2004). - 718 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports STATE v. ILDEFONSO Cite as 304 Neb. 711 agree with the district court that Ildefonso did not meet this minimal threshold. A court is not required to order DNA testing if such testing would not produce exculpatory evidence. In State v. Dean,11 we reasoned that “even if [the prisoner] is correct and DNA testing would not detect the presence of his DNA on the objects in question, the result would be at best inconclusive, and certainly not exculpatory.” The same is true here. Ildefonso asserts that his DNA will not appear on any of the items. But the absence of his DNA on some of the items would be consistent with the evidence and would not be exculpatory, particularly in light of the testimonies of Devore-Alexander, Reh, and Taylor and Ildefonso’s possession of the murder weapon at the time of his apprehension. Ildefonso essentially seeks DNA testing to corroborate Anderson’s original story. Ildefonso maintains that he was framed for the murder, and he argues that testing showing the DNA of Anderson, Fields, or Smith would raise serious doubts regarding the credibility of Devore-Alexander, Reh, and Taylor. One problem for Ildefonso is that the State’s index of property does not show that the State has actual or constructive possession of a DNA sample of Anderson, Fields, or Smith with which to compare any testing results. Another problem is that Anderson recanted his story—parts of which police determined were not credible or were not consistent with the evidence—and was charged with a crime for his false report. An admittedly fabricated story does not provide a basis for DNA testing. We find no error in the district court’s factual findings that the evidence Ildefonso desired to have tested would not produce exculpatory evidence. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion by the court in denying Ildefonso’s motion for DNA testing. 11 State v. Dean, 270 Neb. 972, 976, 708 N.W.2d 640, 644 (2006). - 719 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports STATE v. ILDEFONSO Cite as 304 Neb. 711 Appointment of Counsel A court shall appoint counsel for an indigent person upon a showing that DNA testing may be relevant to the person’s claim of wrongful conviction.12 Here, Ildefonso did not make the requisite showing that DNA testing may be relevant to his claim of wrongful conviction. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing Ildefonso’s request for appointment of counsel.