State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503

Robbins was sentenced in 2003 to 40–60 years for second-degree murder of Brittany Eurek.
In 2012 Robbins filed a multi-prong motion: postconviction relief, a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, and a new trial based on DNA testing.
The district court denied time-barred postconviction relief and denied a new trial under the DNA-act, but granted DNA testing.
Pharmacogenetic testing showed Robbins was an intermediate metabolizer of Zoloft, suggesting his body metabolized the drug differently.
Robbins argued the testing could affect defenses or negate intent; the district court found no causal link between metabolism and the homicide.
The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court committed plain error in granting DNA testing and reversed with directions to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the DNA Testing Act permits metabolism DNA testing to determine drug metabolism.	Robbins contends the Act applies to this testing.	Robbins argues metabolism testing falls outside the Act's identity/exculpatory scope.	No; the Act does not apply to metabolism testing.

State v. Winslow, 274 Neb. 427, 740 N.W.2d 794 (2007) (DNA testing may be exculpatory if it excludes contributors and could affect sentencing)
State v. Pratt, 287 Neb. 455, 842 N.W.2d 800 (2014) (Legislative history and integrity of DNA evidence requirements for testing)
State v. Winslow, 274 Neb. 427, 740 N.W.2d 794 (2007) ((duplicate listed for emphasis))
State v. Soukharith, 260 Neb. 478, 618 N.W.2d 409 (2000) (interpretation of statutory plain meaning and related guidance)
In re Estate of Morse, 248 Neb. 896, 540 N.W.2d 131 (1995) (legislative history and statutory interpretation principles)