State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503

Background

In 2003 Randall R. Robbins pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 40–60 years for killing his girlfriend, Brittany Eurek. Robbins admitted the killing and was the only admitted contributor to the crime scene facts.
In 2012 Robbins sought postconviction relief, a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and DNA testing under Nebraska’s DNA Testing Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4116 et seq.). The district court denied time-barred postconviction relief and the § 29-2101(5) new-trial claim but granted DNA testing.
A buccal swab pharmacogenetic test (administered about 11 years after the crime) showed Robbins was an "intermediate metabolizer" of Zoloft; experts testified this could increase blood drug levels and possibly adverse effects but did not establish a causal link to homicidal behavior.
The district court later denied relief based on the test results (no complete exoneration, no substantial-rights impact, and no unfair sentencing reliance). On appeal the Nebraska Supreme Court sua sponte examined whether the DNA Testing Act authorizes testing of a defendant’s genome to determine drug metabolism.
The Supreme Court held the Act was intended to test biological material connected to the crime (identity/forensic DNA evidence preserved in state possession and chain-of-custody), not to obtain a defendant’s genetic profile to assess metabolism; such testing is not exculpatory under the Act. The court reversed, finding plain error in granting Robbins’ motion for DNA testing, and remanded with directions to dismiss.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Robbins)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4116 et seq. permits DNA testing of a defendant’s genetic ability to metabolize drugs (pharmacogenetic testing)	Act does not limit use; Robbins’s genetic metabolism information is fixed and relevant to culpability/mitigation — a different "person" when on medication	Act is limited to forensic/DNA evidence tied to the crime scene and identity; pharmacogenetic testing is not evidence held by state in connection with the crime	The Act does not authorize pharmacogenetic testing of a defendant to determine drug metabolism; granting such testing was plain error.
Whether pharmacogenetic test results are "exculpatory evidence" under the Act (material to guilt or wrongful sentence)	Test results could show inability to form intent, intoxication, or insanity and could affect culpability or sentencing mitigation	Results do not affect identity, do not exonerate, and would not probably have produced a different trial/sentencing result under the Act	Such evidence is not exculpatory under the Act because it bears on culpability/mitigation, not identity or exclusion from contributors to crime.
Whether biological material for testing must be in state possession/retained with integrity	Robbins: his buccal swab qualifies; DNA profile is permanent and therefore within the Act	State: Act requires evidence secured in connection with the case and retained under chain-of-custody/integrity safeguards	The Act requires biological material tied to the crime and retained under conditions likely to preserve original physical composition; the buccal swab for metabolism does not meet that standard.
Whether failure to raise this interpretive objection below precludes appellate relief	Robbins argued Act applies and raised alternative policy arguments on appeal	State relied on record and statutory limits; court may notice plain error	Court found plain error manifest and corrected it because extending the Act would damage judicial integrity; reversal and dismissal ordered.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455 (2014) (interpreting "integrity" requirement of Nebraska's DNA Testing Act as protecting original physical composition of crime-related biological material)
State v. Winslow, 274 Neb. 427 (2007) (DNA testing may be ordered when it can exclude contributors and produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence affecting identity and culpability)
In re Estate of Morse, 248 Neb. 896 (1995) (plain-error doctrine and when appellate courts may notice error)
State v. Soukharith, 260 Neb. 478 (2000) (statutory interpretation principles for criminal statutes)