State v. Chauncey
295 Neb. 453
| Neb. | 2017Background
- In July 2008, 2-year-old Juliette Geurts died of blunt force trauma; autopsy ruled the death a homicide. Dustin Chauncey lived in the home with Juliette, her twin, and their mother.
- DNA testing of Juliette’s undershirt identified a sperm fraction to which Chauncey was a major contributor and a nonsperm fraction that included him as a contributor.
- A grand jury was convened in 2012; a special prosecutor (Zimmerman) was appointed and in January 2013 indicted Chauncey for intentional child abuse resulting in death (other counts later dismissed as time-barred).
- Pretrial, Chauncey moved to dismiss the indictment for lack of probable cause and to quash the indictment alleging improper appointment of the special prosecutor and erroneous grand jury advice about the statute. Both motions were denied.
- The court reserved ruling on a motion in limine to exclude mention of the sperm fraction; during trial the prosecutor referenced sperm in opening and elicited testimony about jailhouse statements explaining sperm on the shirt. The court later admitted the DNA expert testimony and overruled mistrial motions.
- A jury convicted Chauncey of intentional child abuse resulting in death; he was sentenced to 80 years to life and appealed multiple rulings which the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Chauncey's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Motion to dismiss indictment for lack of probable cause under §29-1418(3) | Probable cause existed from grand jury evidence (e.g., Townsend’s testimony); any error is moot because a jury later convicted beyond a reasonable doubt | Grand jury record (Townsend testimony) did not support probable cause; district court erred in denying dismissal | Any error was cured: trial jury’s guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt moots the grand‑jury probable cause challenge; conviction stands |
| 2a. Motion to quash — appointment of special prosecutor | Appointment under §23-1205 was proper due to perceived conflict/disability of county attorney; discretion of trial court | Appointment was improper; grand jury proceedings tainted | Trial court did not abuse discretion; appointment was proper and quash denied |
| 2b. Motion to quash — prosecutor’s advice to grand jury about statute §28-707 versions | Even if both 2008 and 2012 statute versions were presented, the indictment used correct 2008 language charging knowing/intentional abuse; any confusion was not prejudicial | Prosecutor misled grand jury by citing 2012 version and defining terms inconsistently, prejudicing indictment | No substantial influence on grand jury’s decision; indictment tracked the 2008 law for intentional conduct; quash denied |
| 3. Motion in limine to exclude mention/DNA evidence of sperm fraction (Rule 403) | DNA sperm evidence was probative as to identity and timing of contact; probative value outweighed unfair prejudice, esp. after foundation (Cardwell’s jailhouse statements) | Mention of sperm would unfairly suggest sexual assault and inflame the jury; probative value limited because timing could not be definitively shown | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting sperm‑fraction testimony; relevance and probative value outweighed potential unfair prejudice |
| 4. Motions for mistrial after prosecutor mentioned sperm in opening and during Cardwell testimony | Any early references were either struck/admonished or were proper foundation for later admissible evidence; jury was instructed to disregard improper comment | State violated pretrial order and prejudiced jury by mentioning sperm; mistrial required | Court did not abuse discretion denying mistrials: jury instruction to disregard was sufficient for opening remark; Cardwell testimony was admissible foundation for DNA evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Draper, 886 N.W.2d 266 (Neb. 2016) (evidentiary admissibility governed by rules; discretionary issues reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Johnson, 862 N.W.2d 757 (Neb. 2015) (trial court’s discretion in relevance/403 balancing)
- State v. Green, 842 N.W.2d 74 (Neb. 2014) (error in pretrial sufficiency rulings is cured by subsequent guilty verdict supported by sufficient evidence)
- State v. Edwards, 837 N.W.2d 81 (Neb. 2013) (appointment of special prosecutor is within trial court discretion)
- State v. Mitchell, 884 N.W.2d 730 (Neb. 2016) (standards for granting a mistrial; defendant must show actual prejudice)
- Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250 (1988) (indictment may not be dismissed for grand jury errors absent prejudice or fundamental unfairness)