State v. Munoz
309 Neb. 285
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Munoz was convicted of first-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon; sentenced to life plus a consecutive 20–40 years; direct appeal (with new counsel) affirmed.
- Victim was found days after disappearance with 37 stab wounds; autopsy and bloodstain analysis indicated a violent killing and that someone had washed blood off; no forensic evidence positively linked Munoz to the scene.
- Munoz left Nebraska for Illinois shortly after the incident and made statements to family and officers suggesting guilt/flight and despair.
- Munoz filed a pro se postconviction motion alleging layered ineffective-assistance claims against trial and appellate counsel: failure to investigate/depose witnesses (alibi/flight), failure to suppress statements, failure to call expert(s) (blood spatter/mental stability), and failure to pursue or preserve a motion in limine and jury-instruction objections.
- The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, finding the allegations conclusory, insufficiently specific, or procedurally barred; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Munoz's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural bar for trial-counsel claims not raised on direct appeal | Munoz argued trial counsel was ineffective (e.g., jury-instruction objections) | State argued claims are procedurally barred because different counsel represented Munoz on direct appeal and the alleged errors were known/apparent on the record | Held: Claims against trial counsel are procedurally barred and dismissed |
| Failure to investigate/depose witnesses and alibi defense (Trevino, Condon) | Munoz claimed counsel failed to interview witnesses who would have testified to his whereabouts and provided an alibi | State argued allegations were conclusory, lacked specific proffered testimony, and some proffered testimony (relying on another’s out-of-court statement) would be inadmissible hearsay | Held: Allegations were insufficiently specific; no evidentiary hearing; Trevino testimony would be hearsay and Munoz’s whereabouts/flight were not shown to be exculpatory |
| Failure to call expert witnesses (blood-spatter; mental stability/time of death) | Munoz alleged an expert would have refuted the State’s blood-spatter theory and fixed timing/mental state | State argued no specific proffer of what the expert would have said or how it would change the result | Held: Allegations were conclusory and lacked the required specific factual proffer; no hearing |
| Failure to suppress statements / file/preserve motion in limine / jury-instruction issues | Munoz argued counsel failed to suppress unspecified statements and to preserve or pursue limine and instruction challenges | State argued the motion lacked any factual detail about the statements or the evidence at issue and some claims were not raised below | Held: Dismissed for lack of specificity and/or because claims were not properly raised in the verified postconviction motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Stelly, 308 Neb. 636 (2021) (standards for pleading and reviewing postconviction ineffective-assistance claims)
- State v. Thorpe, 290 Neb. 149 (2015) (when evidentiary hearing is required on postconviction motions)
- State v. Foster, 300 Neb. 883 (2018) (requirement to specifically allege expected testimony of uncalled witnesses)
- State v. Poe, 292 Neb. 60 (2015) (definition and inadmissibility of hearsay absent exception)
- State v. Allen, 301 Neb. 560 (2018) (procedural-bar principle when appellate counsel differs from trial counsel)