State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503

Background

In 2003 Randall R. Robbins pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the strangulation death of Brittany Eurek and was sentenced to 40–60 years.
In 2012 Robbins sought postconviction relief and a new trial; the district court denied those claims but granted his motion for DNA testing under Nebraska’s DNA Testing Act (the Act).
Robbins obtained a buccal-swab pharmacogenetic test showing he is an “intermediate metabolizer” of Zoloft; experts testified this can raise drug levels and potentially increase adverse effects (including reported links to suicidality/violence), but no expert established a causal link to the homicide.
The State’s experts said pharmacogenetic testing is only one tool; trial counsel testified the results might have affected plea or sentencing strategies but Robbins admitted he committed the killing and does not dispute identity.
On remand the district court later dismissed Robbins’ motion for testing results as nonexculpatory; the Nebraska Supreme Court considered (and sua sponte found) plain error in the district court’s original grant of testing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Robbins)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the DNA Testing Act authorizes buccal-swab pharmacogenetic testing of a defendant to determine drug metabolism	Act applies; testing of a defendant’s DNA to show altered mental state on medications falls within Act because DNA profile is stable and Act does not limit use	Act targets biological material tied to crime-scene evidence and identity; it requires evidence in state possession or maintained with chain-of-custody/integrity and testing material must be the kind typically inventoried and secured	Held: Act does not authorize testing to determine metabolism; such testing is outside Act’s purpose and integrity/chain-of-custody requirements
Whether pharmacogenetic results are "exculpatory evidence" under the Act (material to guilt or identity)	Results are favorable and could show inability to form intent, intoxication, or insanity, or mitigate sentencing	Results do not pertain to identity or exclude defendant as contributor; Robbins admitted the killing so results are not exculpatory under statutory definition	Held: Results are not exculpatory under the Act because they do not address identity or likely change trial outcome
Whether the district court’s grant of testing was reviewable as plain error despite no timely objection on scope	Robbins argues testing was proper; appellate review should consider statutory interpretation and merits	The court may correct plain error that affects substantial rights and judicial integrity	Held: Granting testing of this type was plain error because it extended the Act beyond legislative intent and affected a substantial right
Remedy after erroneous grant of testing	Robbins sought new trial / resentencing based on test results	State sought dismissal of testing claim and denial of relief	Held: Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the motion for DNA testing

Key Cases Cited

State v. Winslow, 274 Neb. 427, 740 N.W.2d 794 (2007) (DNA testing may be ordered where testing can exclude contributors and produce noncumulative exculpatory evidence)
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455, 842 N.W.2d 800 (2014) (statutory “integrity” requirement concerns preservation of original physical composition of DNA evidence)
State v. Buckman, 267 Neb. 505, 675 N.W.2d 372 (2004) (principles of statutory construction)
State v. Soukharith, 260 Neb. 478, 618 N.W.2d 409 (2000) (statutory interpretation: consider statute as whole and in pari materia)
In re Estate of Morse, 248 Neb. 896, 540 N.W.2d 131 (1995) (plain-error doctrine and appellate review of unpreserved errors)