State v. Betancourt-Garcia
299 Neb. 775
| Neb. | 2018Background
- In 2003 Pedro Rayon-Piza was found bound and gagged; he identified Rosario Betancourt-Garcia as one of his kidnappers; Betancourt was later convicted in 2015 of kidnapping, use of a firearm, and conspiracy.
- Photographs and physical items (duct tape, shoes, laces, cord) were taken at the scene; some duct tape was collected and stored as evidence years earlier.
- Prior to Betancourt’s 2013 rearrest and trial, the Madison police chief disposed of physical evidence from the case during an evidence-room cleanout (around 2010) while Betancourt was deported/absent.
- In February 2017 Betancourt moved under Nebraska’s DNA Testing Act to test the duct tape, shoes, laces, and related biological material, alleging testing could be exculpatory; his motion asserted the evidence remained in Madison County custody.
- At a June 2017 hearing, testimony established the physical evidence had been destroyed before the motion and before Betancourt’s incarceration; the district court denied the DNA-testing motion and declined to address a due-process claim not raised in the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DNA Testing Act relief is available when requested items were destroyed before the motion | Betancourt: testing could produce exculpatory evidence; items remained in State custody per police reports | State: evidence had been destroyed years earlier and was not in State control when motion filed | Denied — Act applies only to biological material in State actual/constructive possession or control; items were destroyed before motion so Act did not apply |
| Whether the district court’s factual findings re evidence destruction were clearly erroneous | Betancourt: destruction violated his allegations; evidence was preserved per reports | State: police chief and deputy testified the evidence was disposed during a lawful cleanout while defendant was absconded | Court: factual findings upheld — not clearly erroneous; no abuse of discretion in denial |
| Whether the court should consider a due process claim based on destruction of evidence under the DNA Testing Act | Betancourt: destroyed evidence was materially exculpatory and violated due process | State: due-process challenge was not pleaded in the DNA-testing motion and is outside the Act’s scope | Court: refused to address due-process claim — constitutional challenge is outside the Act and was not properly before the court |
| Whether sanctions/remedies are available if evidence is destroyed after notice under the Act | N/A (procedural requirement) | State: county attorney must preserve remaining biological material after notice; intentional post-notice destruction can yield sanctions | Court noted the statutory preservation/notice scheme but found no post-notice destruction on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 295 Neb. 170, 887 N.W.2d 296 (Neb. 2016) (direct appeal of convictions affirmed; remanded for resentencing on one count)
- State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503, 900 N.W.2d 745 (Neb. 2017) (standard of review for DNA Testing Act motions)
- State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455, 842 N.W.2d 800 (Neb. 2014) (construction and purpose of Nebraska DNA Testing Act)
- California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1984) (due process claim requires that destroyed evidence be materially exculpatory and unavailable by other means)