State v. Jacob
309 Neb. 401
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Steven Jacob was convicted of two murders (1989) and sentenced to consecutive life terms; convictions were affirmed after a retrial.
- Crime-scene evidence included six 9mm shell casings, one unfired cartridge, a removed storm window with Jacob’s fingerprints, and a gauze sample/stain from the living room.
- Jacob filed a 2019 motion under Nebraska’s DNA Testing Act seeking modern DNA testing of the casings/cartridge and the living-room stain/gauze, arguing such testing could show someone else loaded/fired the gun or provide evidence of nonconsensual intercourse (motive).
- The State and district court opposed/testing was denied under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4120(5)(c): the court concluded any DNA results would at best be inconclusive and would not produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to wrongful conviction.
- The district court also denied Jacob’s requests for appointment of counsel and in forma pauperis status, deemed his motion to alter/amend abandoned for procedural noncompliance, and a later bill of exceptions dispute was resolved against Jacob.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of DNA testing | Testing casings/gauze may show other DNA, proving Jacob was not the shooter | Testing would be cumulative/inconclusive and would not exonerate Jacob | Affirmed: testing would not likely produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence under §29-4120(5)(c) |
| Appointment of counsel under DNA Testing Act | Counsel needed because DNA testing may be relevant to wrongful-conviction claim | Jacob failed to show testing would be relevant; thus counsel unnecessary | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying counsel because testing not shown relevant |
| Motion to alter or amend district court order | Court misapplied the legal standard and ignored arguments; asks order to require testing | Motion was procedurally defective (no hearing notice); order denying testing stands | Affirmed: even if error on abandonment, no substantial right lost because denial of DNA testing proper |
| Bill of exceptions/record completeness | District court failed to produce complete bill; judicial notice issues existed | Bill of exceptions was filed and record contains trial bills; no omission | Affirmed: bill filed; praecipe for full trial record unnecessary; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Myers, 304 Neb. 789 (Neb. 2020) (absence of defendant’s DNA on tested items is inconclusive and not necessarily exculpatory)
- State v. Dean, 270 Neb. 972 (Neb. 2006) (DNA absence on gun/ammunition would be at best inconclusive and not exculpatory)
- State v. Lotter, 266 Neb. 758 (Neb. 2003) (DNA testing showing victims’ blood on accomplice would not necessarily prove shooter identity or contradict accomplice testimony)
- State v. Buckman, 267 Neb. 505 (Neb. 2004) (statutory definition and low threshold for "exculpatory evidence" under the DNA Testing Act)