State v. Amaya
305 Neb. 36
| Neb. | 2020Background
- 1998: Sheri Fhuere was sexually assaulted and murdered. Jay Amaya and co-defendant Michael Long were charged; Long entered a plea deal to testify against Amaya.
- At the time of plea (1999) physical evidence tied Amaya to the crime: a bite mark later forensically matched Amaya, Fhuere’s blood was on Amaya’s shoe, and Amaya wrote jailhouse letters confessing involvement.
- In 2017 Amaya sought postconviction DNA testing under the Nebraska DNA Testing Act; the court ordered testing of four items (bite-mark swab, knife handle, mouth of beer bottle allegedly used to store the knife, mouth of beer bottle found on the porch).
- Results: the bite-mark major profile matched Amaya; the knife handle and the beer bottle used to store the knife had major profiles matching the victim; the porch beer bottle had a major profile matching Long; minor contributors on several samples were inconclusive.
- The State moved to dismiss the DNA-testing proceeding, arguing results did not exonerate or exculpate Amaya; the district court granted the motion.
- Amaya appealed, arguing (1) the results exonerated him and required vacatur/release, (2) he should be allowed to withdraw his no contest pleas, or (3) he should be resentenced.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amaya) | Defendant's Argument (State/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DNA results exonerate/exculpate Amaya to vacate judgment and release him | DNA profiles undermine Long’s credibility and the knife/bottle results do not implicate Amaya; bite-mark match is not dispositive of guilt | DNA results were inculpatory or inconclusive; substantial other evidence (bite-mark, blood on shoe, jailhouse confessions) still tie Amaya to the crimes | Court affirmed: results did not exonerate/exculpate; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether DNA results authorize withdrawal of guilty/no contest pleas | If Amaya had known the DNA results, he would have gone to trial; plea withdrawal is required | The DNA Testing Act does not provide plea-withdrawal as a remedy; plea-based convictions are not automatically undone by testing results | Court: withdrawal of plea is not a remedy under the Act |
| Whether resentencing is an available remedy under the DNA Testing Act | Testing may show issues relevant to sentencing; resentencing should be available relief | The Act’s remedies are limited to vacatur/release or new trial; resentencing is not authorized by statute | Court: resentencing is not an authorized remedy under the Act |
| Whether DNA results undermine Long’s credibility enough to require relief (new trial or vacatur) | Presence of Long’s DNA on porch bottle and absence of Amaya on knife/bottle discredit Long’s statements implicating Amaya | Long’s credibility issues were known at time of plea; DNA results are at best inconclusive on many items and do not overcome other strong inculpatory evidence | Court: even if they raised credibility questions, results were not sufficiently exculpatory; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Myers, 301 Neb. 756 (2018) (explains threshold criteria for ordering postconviction DNA testing)
- State v. Buckman, 267 Neb. 505 (2004) (discusses DNA testing availability and standards)
- State v. Poe, 271 Neb. 858 (2006) (standard of review for DNA-testing dismissal)
- State v. Winslow, 274 Neb. 427 (2007) (DNA Testing Act applies to plea-based convictions)
- State v. Ildefonso, 304 Neb. 711 (2019) (review of factual findings on DNA testing motions)
- State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844 (2019) (statutory interpretation principles applied)