State v. Munoz
927 N.W.2d 25
Neb.2019Background
- Victim Melissa May was found on January 3, 2017, with 37 stab wounds; cause of death: multiple stab wounds. A sexual assault kit yielded only the victim’s DNA.
- Lucio Munoz was seen with May the evening before her death; he left town shortly after and was later arrested in Illinois wearing different clothes than on the recorded footage from the night before.
- Munoz made statements to others indicating remorse and references to dying in prison; he asked to leave town soon after the incident.
- The State charged Munoz with first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon; a jury convicted on both counts.
- On appeal Munoz challenged (1) prosecutor remarks in opening, (2) a witness (Brady) invoking the Fifth Amendment in front of the jury, and (3) admission of blood-spatter expert testimony; he also claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to these matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Munoz) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s opening statement | Prosecutor misstated/implicated destruction or concealment of blood evidence and counsel should have objected | Opening remarks were consistent with trial evidence (no weapon or bloody clothing found; clothes at arrest differed); opening statements are not evidence | No prosecutorial misconduct; no plain error; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| Witness invoking Fifth Amendment before jury (Brady) | Brady’s on-the-record invocation violated Neb. Evid. R. 513(2); created risk jury drew adverse inference; counsel should have demanded compliance | Bill of exceptions does not show anyone knew Brady would invoke privilege; prosecutor promptly granted immunity and Brady then testified and was cross-examined | No plain error because record does not show prior knowledge that privilege would be invoked; no prejudice shown; counsel not ineffective |
| Blood-spatter expert testimony — relevance | Evidence was irrelevant because expert linked blood patterns to events but not to a suspect or weapon; counsel should have objected | Evidence was relevant to the sequence, nature, and brutality of the attack and aided the State’s narrative; not unfairly prejudicial | Testimony met the low relevance threshold and was not so prejudicial as to require exclusion; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel on these failures | Failure to object to opening, privilege invocation, and blood-spatter testimony was deficient and prejudiced outcome | No basis for objections (no misconduct or legal violation); even if known, no reasonable probability of a different outcome; record insufficient to show deficiency or prejudice | Appeals court: record conclusively shows no deficient performance or prejudice on these claims; ineffective-assistance claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 ( Supreme Court) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777 (Neb. 2015) (discusses invoking privilege before jury and related prejudice concerns)
- State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734 (Neb. 2018) (prosecutor entitled to draw inferences; misconduct standard)
- State v. Sundquist, 301 Neb. 1006 (Neb. 2019) (plain-error standard)