State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 475

Background

On Aug. 19, 2013, Curtis Bradford was found shot to death outdoors in Omaha; autopsy showed two gunshot injuries (a shotgun slug and a smaller-caliber bullet to the brain).
Police linked Bradford to a gang and connected defendant Erica A. Jenkins and her brother Nikko to the same milieu; prosecution theorized motive as retaliation—Jenkins targeted Bradford as an associate of a rival (P‑Dough).
Eyewitness testimony placed Jenkins, Nikko, Bradford, and others together the night of Aug. 18–19; witnesses described guns present, a brief outing, gunshots, and Jenkins later expressing she had shot Bradford (and washed blood from a rifle at a relative’s house).
Physical evidence: a Brenneke shotgun slug at the scene; a shortened shotgun and assault rifle seized from Nikko’s residence; DNA linked Bradford to the rifle and to blood in Nikko’s girlfriend’s car; DNA on the rifle did not conclusively exclude multiple others, including Jenkins, as minor contributors.
At trial Jenkins was convicted of first‑degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person; she appealed, challenging several evidentiary rulings and sufficiency of the evidence.

Issues

Issue	Jenkins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admission of Jenkins’ post‑offense threat statement	Statement was inadmissible other‑acts evidence under Rule 404	Statement was a direct admission of the charged crime, therefore not an extrinsic act	Admission proper: statement was direct evidence of the charged crime and probative of identity/intent
Admission of testimony Jenkins possessed a revolver before/after offense	Testimony was improper propensity/other‑acts evidence under Rule 404	Evidence showed opportunity/intent; even if erroneous, testimony from another witness made error harmless	Any error was harmless because similar testimony (Easterling) remained and evidence was cumulative
Admission of gruesome/criminal‑scene & autopsy photographs	Photographs were prejudicial and cumulative under Rule 403	Photos were probative to ID, condition of body, nature/extent of wounds, and intent; not cumulative	Photographs admissible: probative, noncumulative, and appropriately foundational despite gruesomeness
Exclusion of cross‑examination about crime‑lab misconduct	Exclusion violated Sixth Amendment confrontation right; would impeach witness Paggen	Proposed questions were speculative, beyond witness’s personal knowledge, and irrelevant to Paggen’s credibility	No constitutional violation: excluded questions were immaterial/speculative and would not have significantly changed credibility impression
Sufficiency of the evidence	Witnesses were not credible and DNA was inconclusive; convictions not supported	Jury could reasonably infer Jenkins’ guilt from witness accounts and physical evidence	Evidence sufficient: viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could convict beyond reasonable doubt

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cullen, 292 Neb. 30 (discusses standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 (photograph admission reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Hale, 290 Neb. 70 (Rule 404(3) requirement for proving extrinsic acts outside jury presence)
State v. Glazebrook, 282 Neb. 412 (purpose and danger of other‑acts evidence under Rule 404)
State v. Payne‑McCoy, 284 Neb. 302 (procedural requirements for offering other‑acts evidence)
State v. Canbaz, 259 Neb. 583 (statements as direct evidence of intent/premeditation)
State v. Ash, 293 Neb. 583 (harmless error standard)
State v. Bauldwin, 283 Neb. 678 (gruesome photographs may be received if probative)
State v. Davlin, 272 Neb. 139 (uses for admission of victim photographs in homicide cases)