State v. Brown, 310 Neb. 318

Background

Rolander L. Brown was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, use of a firearm to commit a felony, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person; total sentence 100–140 years. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Prosecution’s trial evidence included ShotSpotter detection, surveillance video showing a male approach/leave the victim's residence, cell‑site and phone‑call records placing Brown’s phone near the scene, and witness Parris Stamps who testified Brown said he “had to put [Alonzo] down” and showed a handgun with a missing bullet.
Doloma Curtis (victim’s romantic partner) had been interviewed repeatedly before trial and consistently told police she did not see who shot Alonzo; she was subpoenaed but did not testify at Brown’s trial and later pleaded guilty to accessory.
In 2020 Curtis executed an affidavit and testified at a motion‑for‑new‑trial hearing that she actually saw her brother, LeRoy Long, standing by Alonzo with a handgun immediately after the shot, and that Brown was present briefly but ran away.
Brown moved for a new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑2101(5) (newly discovered evidence). The district court held (1) Curtis’s account, if credible, was newly discovered and material but (2) Curtis’s testimony lacked credibility and therefore would not probably produce a different verdict; the court denied the motion.
On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial because Curtis’s new account was not sufficiently credible or competent to have probably produced a different outcome.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Curtis’s affidavit/testimony constituted "newly discovered evidence" under § 29‑2101(5)	State: affidavit did not identify newly discovered evidence and court could have dismissed	Brown: Curtis’s late affidavit revealed facts (Long at scene) that could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered earlier	Court: District court correctly found Curtis’s new account could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence (prong satisfied)
Whether the newly discovered testimony was sufficiently credible/competent and likely to produce a different verdict	State: Curtis’s belated account lacked credibility and would not overcome the State’s strong proof	Brown: Curtis’s eyewitness account placing Long at the scene was material and would probably change the verdict	Court: Curtis’s testimony lacked requisite credibility/competency; district court did not abuse discretion in denying new trial

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169, 953 N.W.2d 224 (2021) (standard of review for denial of new trial — abuse of discretion)
State v. Brown, 302 Neb. 53, 921 N.W.2d 804 (2019) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
State v. McCormick, 246 Neb. 271, 518 N.W.2d 133 (1994) (definition of materiality for newly discovered evidence)
State v. Rosales, 3 Neb. App. 26, 521 N.W.2d 385 (1994) (uncredible newly discovered evidence cannot justify new trial)
State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801, 957 N.W.2d 161 (2021) (appellate courts do not reassess witness credibility)
State v. Wheeler, 308 Neb. 708, 956 N.W.2d 708 (2021) (credibility of witnesses is for the finder of fact)