State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 910 N.W.2d 164

In 2003 Pedro Rayon-Piza was found bound and gagged; police collected physical evidence (duct tape, shoes, shoelace-type cord) and photographed the scene.
Betancourt was charged with kidnapping and related offenses; he was arrested years later, tried, and convicted in 2015; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 2016.
Prior to Betancourt’s 2013 rearrest, Madison police disposed of the physical evidence (circa 2010) while Betancourt was deported/absent and not incarcerated on the case.
In February 2017 Betancourt filed a motion under Nebraska’s DNA Testing Act seeking forensic testing of the duct tape, shoes, laces, and saliva; his motion asserted the items remained in Madison County custody.
At a June 2017 hearing officers testified the physical evidence had been destroyed before trial; the district court denied the motion because the materials were not in state (actual or constructive) possession when the motion was filed.
Betancourt also argued on appeal that destruction violated due process; the court declined to address that constitutional claim because it was outside the scope of the DNA Testing Act and was not presented in the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the DNA Testing Act authorizes testing of the listed items	Betancourt: testing could produce exculpatory DNA and items remained in state custody	State: items had been destroyed before the motion and thus were not subject to the Act	Denied — Act applies only to biological material in actual or constructive possession/control of the State when motion filed; evidence was destroyed earlier
Whether the timing/possession requirement in § 29-4120(1)(b) was met	Betancourt: police reports indicate evidence remained in Madison County custody	State: evidence was disposed of circa 2010 while Betancourt was absconded; not preserved when motion filed	Held for State — uncontested testimony showed destruction before motion; no abuse of discretion in denial
Whether the State’s pretrial destruction violated due process	Betancourt: destroyed evidence was materially exculpatory, violating due process	State: constitutional claim not raised in the motion and the DNA Testing Act is a limited statutory remedy; court should not address under the Act	Court declined to reach due process claim — it was outside the Act’s scope and not properly before the court

State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503 (recognizing standard of review for DNA testing motions)
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 (describing DNA Testing Act procedure and scope)
State v. Betancourt-Garcia, 295 Neb. 170 (prior direct-appeal opinion affirming convictions)
California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (due process constraints on government destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence)