State v. Brown, 310 Neb. 318

Victim Carlos Alonzo was found shot to death on May 28, 2016 outside Doloma Curtis’ home; ShotSpotter, surveillance video, cell‑site data, and witness testimony tied the scene and timelines to Rolander Brown.
Brown’s friend Parris Stamps testified Brown said he “had to put [Alonzo] down” and displayed a .40 handgun with a missing bullet; Brown’s phone records placed his phone near the scene around the shooting.
Brown was convicted of second‑degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, and sentenced to 100–140 years; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
After release from prison, Curtis executed an affidavit (and later testified at a new‑trial hearing) saying she saw her brother, LeRoy Long, at the body with a handgun and that Brown ran away—contradicting prior statements she gave to police before trial.
Brown moved for a new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑2101(5) (newly discovered evidence); the district court held Curtis’ account was newly discovered but found her testimony not credible and not likely to change the verdict, so denied the motion.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: it held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion because the newly‑proffered testimony lacked requisite credibility/materiality to probably produce a different verdict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Brown’s motion for new trial under § 29‑2101(5)	State: District court correctly denied the motion because the proffered testimony was not credible or sufficiently material to probably change the verdict	Brown: Curtis’ affidavit/testimony was newly discovered and material (places Long at scene and implicates him as shooter), warranting a new trial	Court affirmed: first prong (newly discovered) could be met, but Curtis’ testimony lacked credibility/competency and would probably not change the verdict, so denial was not an abuse of discretion
Whether the district court erred in denying the State’s motion to dismiss and finding the affidavit was newly discovered (State’s cross‑appeal)	State: Curtis’ affidavit did not identify newly discovered evidence and court should have dismissed	Brown: Court correctly treated the affidavit as newly discovered and held a hearing	Court declined to address the cross‑appeal as unnecessary given its disposition

State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169, 953 N.W.2d 224 (2021) (standard of review for denial of a motion for new trial is abuse of discretion)
State v. McCormick, 246 Neb. 271, 518 N.W.2d 133 (1994) (newly discovered evidence must be so material that a different verdict would probably result)
State v. Costello, 199 Neb. 43, 256 N.W.2d 97 (1977) (newly discovered evidence must be competent and credible)
State v. Seger, 191 Neb. 760, 217 N.W.2d 828 (1974) (same principle regarding competency/credibility of newly discovered evidence)
State v. Rosales, 3 Neb. App. 26, 521 N.W.2d 385 (1994) (lack of credibility defeats claim that new evidence would change result)
State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801, 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021) (appellate courts do not reweigh witness credibility)
State v. Wheeler, 308 Neb. 708, 956 N.W.2d 708 (2021) (credibility is for the factfinder)
State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749, 696 N.W.2d 420 (2005) (similar principle on appellate review of witness credibility)