State v. Cook, 290 Neb. 381

Background

In 2000, Amy Stahlecker was found murdered; semen and blood evidence at the scene matched Cook by DNA. Cook and friend Michael Hornbacher gave conflicting accounts; Hornbacher confessed to Cook and to police implicating Cook.
Investigators recovered blood, fibers, and shoeprint evidence in Cook’s truck; shoeprint on the truck matched a print at the scene. Cook testified Hornbacher shot Stahlecker and forced Cook to help move the body.
Douglas County crime scene investigator David Kofoed later was found to have fabricated evidence in other cases; Kofoed participated in making shoeprint castings and processing evidence in Cook’s investigation.
Cook was convicted of first-degree murder and weapon use; convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. Cook thereafter brought postconviction relief alleging, inter alia, that investigators (including Kofoed) planted or contaminated evidence and that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial-counsel errors on direct appeal.
The district court granted hearings on a few claims but denied 28 of 35 postconviction claims for lack of factual specificity or merit. Cook appealed the denial of hearings on the fabricated-evidence and layered ineffective-assistance claims.

Issues

Issue	Cook's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Kofoed or other investigators fabricated or planted DNA/blood/fiber/shoeprint evidence requiring an evidentiary hearing	Kofoed (and other investigators) planted or cross-contaminated evidence in Cook’s truck; his history of fabrication supports a hearing	Alleged fabrication is conclusory; physical evidence was found in non-obscure locations and is explainable by Cook’s own admissions	No evidentiary hearing; allegations were conclusory and records explain evidence placement
Whether layered ineffective-assistance (appellate counsel’s failure to raise trial errors) warranted an evidentiary hearing	Appellate counsel failed to raise conflict-of-interest, trial-counsel failures, and jury-instruction issues; that layered claim requires relief	Claims were either previously known/raised on direct appeal or pleaded without factual specificity; many issues are procedurally barred or conclusory	Denied; Cook failed to allege sufficient facts and failed to specifically assign and argue the errors on appeal
Standard for granting a postconviction evidentiary hearing	Movant argued his allegations merited testing at a hearing	State relied on case law requiring specific factual allegations (not conclusions) to trigger a hearing	Court applied de novo review and held hearings are required only where specific factual allegations, if proven, would void or voidable the judgment
Procedural requirement to preserve and brief appellate errors	Cook urged reconsideration of preclusion rules for issues known on direct appeal	State emphasized rule that errors must be specially assigned and argued to be considered	Court declined to revisit preclusion rule; refused to consider arguments not assigned or briefed properly

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cook, 266 Neb. 465 (direct appeal upholding convictions) (background and prior appellate disposition)
State v. Kofoed, 283 Neb. 767 (investigator found to have fabricated evidence in other cases)
State v. Edwards, 284 Neb. 382 (postconviction relief warranted where defendant pleaded factual pattern similar to Kofoed’s known misconduct)
State v. Sims, 277 Neb. 192 (Postconviction Act available to challenge constitutional violations)
State v. Branch, 286 Neb. 83 (evidentiary-hearing standard on postconviction motions)
State v. Yos-Chiguil, 281 Neb. 618 (standard for appellate review when hearings denied)
State v. Baker, 286 Neb. 524 (de novo review of sufficiency of postconviction allegations)
State v. Lee, 282 Neb. 652 (rule precluding review of issues known on direct appeal)
State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 (errors must be specifically assigned and argued on appeal)