State v. Brown, 965 N.W.2d 388

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; sentence totaled 100–140 years. His convictions were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
Crime facts: in the early morning of May 28, 2016, Carlos Alonzo was found shot in front of Doloma Curtis’ house. Surveillance video showed a sedan (missing a front passenger-side hubcap) arrive and a male approach the residence; Omaha’s ShotSpotter detected a gunshot at about the same time.
Forensic/phone evidence: Brown’s phone number was the last to call a phone found in Curtis’ bedroom; cell‑site records placed Brown’s phone in the area near the shooting.
Witness evidence at trial: Parris Stamps testified Brown said he “had to put [Alonzo] down” and produced a .40 S&W with a missing bullet; Curtis was subpoenaed but did not testify at trial.
After release from prison in 2018, Curtis executed an affidavit in 2020 stating she saw her brother LeRoy Long standing next to Alonzo with a gun and that Brown ran away; she then testified consistently at an evidentiary hearing on Brown’s motion for new trial.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing, found Curtis’ affidavit/testimony was newly discovered but not credible, and concluded it would not probably produce a different verdict; it denied the motion for new trial. Brown appealed; the State cross‑appealed limited procedural rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Brown)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Brown’s motion for new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(5) (newly discovered evidence)	Curtis’ 2020 affidavit and hearing testimony constitute newly discovered, material eyewitness evidence placing LeRoy Long at the scene and likely to produce a different verdict	Curtis’ statements were not newly discovered (she gave consistent prior statements denying knowledge) and/or lack credibility; court could dismiss without hearing	Affirmed. Court accepted that testimony was newly discovered but found it not credible and therefore not sufficiently material to probably change the verdict; denial was not an abuse of discretion

State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169, 953 N.W.2d 224 (Neb. 2021) (standard of review—abuse of discretion for denial of new trial after evidentiary hearing)
State v. Brown, 302 Neb. 53, 921 N.W.2d 804 (Neb. 2019) (direct‑appeal opinion affirming convictions)
State v. McCormick, 246 Neb. 271, 518 N.W.2d 133 (Neb. 1994) (definition of materiality for newly discovered evidence)
State v. Costello, 199 Neb. 43, 256 N.W.2d 97 (Neb. 1977) (competency and credibility required for newly discovered testimony)
State v. Seger, 191 Neb. 760, 217 N.W.2d 828 (Neb. 1974) (same)
State v. Rosales, 3 Neb. App. 26, 521 N.W.2d 385 (Neb. App. 1994) (lack of credibility defeats showing of probable different result)
State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801, 957 N.W.2d 161 (Neb. 2021) (appellate courts do not reweigh witness credibility)
State v. Wheeler, 308 Neb. 708, 956 N.W.2d 708 (Neb. 2021) (same)