State v. Robbins, 900 N.W.2d 745

Background

In 2003 Randall R. Robbins pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 40–60 years for strangling his girlfriend, Brittany Eurek.
In 2012 Robbins sought postconviction relief, a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and DNA testing under Nebraska’s DNA Testing Act; the district court denied the postconviction and newly discovered evidence claims but granted DNA testing.
A buccal swab pharmacogenetic test (taken while Robbins was incarcerated, 11 years after the crime) classified Robbins as an "intermediate metabolizer" of Zoloft, suggesting he might require lower than standard doses to avoid adverse effects.
Experts agreed pharmacogenetic testing can show reduced metabolic capacity but did not establish a causal link between Robbins’ metabolizer status and homicidal or suicidal behavior; no evidence identified a direct, reliable connection between metabolizer category and propensity for violence.
The State argued and the Supreme Court considered whether Nebraska’s DNA Testing Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4116 et seq.) reaches testing of a defendant’s genome for pharmacogenetic purposes and whether those results are “exculpatory” under the Act.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the district court committed plain error in granting testing under the Act because the Act is directed to forensic DNA relevant to identity/biological evidence from the crime scene and does not authorize genetic testing of a defendant to determine drug metabolism; it reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss.

Issues

Issue	Robbins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the DNA Testing Act authorizes genetic testing of a defendant to determine drug‑metabolism capacity (pharmacogenetic testing)	Act applies because Robbins was in custody and DNA/profile is immutable; testing could bear on culpability and sentencing mitigation	Act is limited to biological material tied to the crime scene/identity and materials in state custody; pharmacogenetic testing of the defendant is outside the Act	Act does not authorize buccal‑swab pharmacogenetic testing of a defendant for metabolism; district court plainly erred in granting testing
Whether pharmacogenetic results are "exculpatory" under the Act (i.e., material to guilt or identity)	Results are favorable and could show inability to form intent, intoxication, or insanity—thereby affecting guilt or sentencing	Results do not affect identity, do not exclude defendant as a contributor to crime evidence, and therefore are not exculpatory under the Act	Pharmacogenetic evidence not exculpatory under the Act because it does not pertain to identity or materially undermine guilt; Act’s purpose is to test evidence tied to identity/exoneration

Key Cases Cited

State v. Winslow, 274 Neb. 427 (reversal where DNA testing could exclude a contributor and was material to identity)
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 (interpreting the Act’s “integrity” / original physical composition requirement)
State v. Buckman, 267 Neb. 505 (statutory construction principles)
State v. Soukharith, 260 Neb. 478 (statutory interpretation guidance)
In re Estate of Morse, 248 Neb. 896 (plain‑error doctrine discussion)