State v. Amaya, 938 N.W.2d 346

In 1998 Sheri Fhuere was raped and murdered; Jay D. Amaya and Michael E. Long were charged. Long pleaded in exchange for reduced charges and agreed to testify against Amaya.
Evidence at the time included a bite mark later attributed to Amaya, Fhuere’s blood on Amaya’s shoe, and letters Amaya wrote confessing involvement; Amaya pled no contest in 1999 and received lengthy consecutive sentences.
In 2017 Amaya sought postconviction DNA testing under the Nebraska DNA Testing Act; the court ordered testing of four items: swabs from the bite mark, the knife handle, the beer bottle that allegedly held the knife, and a beer bottle found on the front porch.
Results: the bite-mark major profile matched Amaya; the knife handle and the beer-bottle-knife mouth major profiles matched the victim (minor contributors inconclusive); the porch-beer-bottle major profile matched Long (minor contributor inconclusive).
The State moved to dismiss the DNA-testing proceeding, arguing the results did not exonerate or exculpate Amaya. The district court granted the motion; Amaya appealed.
The Supreme Court found the district court’s factual findings not clearly erroneous and affirmed, holding the testing results were inculpatory, inconclusive, or immaterial and that the DNA Testing Act does not provide relief in the form of resentencing or plea withdrawal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Amaya)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether DNA results exonerate/exculpate Amaya so judgment must be vacated and he released	DNA results undermine Long’s credibility and the physical-evidence narrative, thus exonerating/exculpating Amaya	Results either corroborate incriminating evidence (bite mark) or are inconclusive/immaterial; do not show innocence	Court: Results do not exonerate/exculpate; dismissal affirmed
Whether DNA results permit withdrawal of no-contest pleas	Amaya would have gone to trial if he had known results; withdrawal is proper relief	Act does not authorize plea withdrawal as a remedy after testing	Court: Plea withdrawal is not an available remedy under the DNA Testing Act
Whether resentencing is available relief under the DNA Testing Act	Test results reduce Long’s credibility and thus could have produced more favorable sentences; resentencing should be allowed	Remedies under the Act are limited to vacatur/release or motion for new trial; resentencing is not provided	Court: Resentencing is not a remedy under the Act; rejected
Whether the district court’s factual findings and dismissal were erroneous/abuse of discretion	The court misapplied the Act and undervalued the exculpatory weight of the tests	Court properly evaluated results against statutory standards and record; no abuse of discretion	Court: No clear error in findings and no abuse of discretion in granting dismissal

State v. Myers, 301 Neb. 756 (2018) (describes threshold for ordering postconviction DNA testing)
State v. Buckman, 267 Neb. 505 (2004) (explains availability of forensic DNA testing)
State v. Poe, 271 Neb. 858 (2006) (standard of review for dismissal after DNA testing)
State v. Ildefonso, 304 Neb. 711 (2019) (addresses evaluation of DNA-testing results post-hearing)
State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844 (2019) (statutory-interpretation principles)
Bridgeport Ethanol v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 284 Neb. 291 (2012) (principles on giving statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning)