State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503

In 2003 Robbins pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to 40–60 years for strangling his girlfriend. He admitted the killing and does not dispute identity.
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 the postconviction/new-trial claims but granted DNA testing.
A buccal swab pharmacogenetic test (taken 11 years after the crime) classified Robbins as an "intermediate metabolizer" of Zoloft, which experts said may warrant lower dosing and can increase plasma drug levels and, in some reports, adverse reactions including suicidality or violence.
The State’s expert emphasized that pharmacogenetic testing is a clinical tool, not definitive proof of causation; the district court found no causal link between Robbins’ metabolizer status and the homicide.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the DNA Testing Act is focused on biological material connected to identity and preserved under a chain of custody; it does not authorize posthoc testing of a defendant’s genetics to assess drug metabolism that bears no relation to identity or biological evidence from the crime scene.

Issue	Robbins' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the DNA Testing Act authorizes court-ordered genetic testing of the defendant (buccal swab) to determine pharmacogenetic metabolism	Testing is covered because (1) sample is biological DNA, (2) Act does not limit use, and (3) metabolizer status is relevant to culpability and sentencing mitigation	Act targets DNA evidence tied to identity and evidence retained by the State; defendant’s metabolism is not evidence from the crime scene and is not within the Act’s purpose	Court held the Act does not authorize testing a defendant’s genetics for drug metabolism; district court erred in granting testing (reversed)
Whether pharmacogenetic results are “exculpatory” under the Act (material to guilt/identity)	Results are favorable and could show inability to form intent, intoxication, or insanity, thus affecting guilt or sentencing	Results do not exonerate or affect identity; Robbins admits the killing and testing cannot exclude him or alter identity-related evidence	Court held metabolism evidence is not exculpatory under the Act because it does not relate to identity or probably produce a different trial result

State v. Winslow, 274 Neb. 427, 740 N.W.2d 794 (explaining when DNA testing can produce noncumulative, exculpatory evidence relevant to identity and culpability)
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455, 842 N.W.2d 800 (interpreting the Act’s "integrity" requirement and chain-of-custody focus for biological material)
State v. Soukharith, 260 Neb. 478, 618 N.W.2d 409 (statutory interpretation principles for Nebraska courts)