State v. Torres
295 Neb. 830
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Marco E. Torres, Jr. was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, robbery, multiple weapons offenses, and unauthorized use of a financial transaction device; he received death sentences for both murders and lengthy terms for other convictions. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Evidence linked Torres to the murders: DNA on a gag and cigarette butts, use of the victim Hall’s bank card, possession of Packer’s cell phone when arrested, and Torres’ flight to Texas in Hall’s car (later found burned).
- At the murder trial, the court admitted prior-act evidence (kidnapping/robbery of Packer) under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2) as motive evidence; on direct appeal this Court deemed some aspects improperly admitted but harmless.
- Torres sought postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (a) failing to call three witnesses to rebut the Packer kidnapping evidence, (b) failing to investigate/preserve or challenge evidence handling (Salvation Army sign-in/video, crime-scene release), and (c) failing to retain a mitigation specialist; he also alleged prosecutorial misconduct (failure to preserve/produce evidence and threats to his mother).
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied relief; Torres appealed the denial and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Torres) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Ineffective assistance for failing to call three witnesses to contradict Packer kidnapping evidence | Calling them would have undermined the 404(2) evidence used against him | Trial counsel reasonably avoided calling witnesses that risked bolstering the kidnapping proof; strategic decision | Counsel’s performance was not deficient; no ineffective assistance found |
| 2) Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge/preserve evidence (crime-scene release, contamination, Salvation Army video/sign-in) | Counsel should have pressed preservation, called an expert, obtained video/sheets to challenge timeline and contamination | Counsel investigated, cross-examined state experts, obtained sign-in sheets, and reasonably declined cumulative expert testimony; the house was at most "potentially useful," not material | No deficient performance or prejudice; claims fail; State had no duty to indefinitely preserve the house absent bad faith |
| 3) Ineffective assistance for failure to retain mitigation specialist at sentencing | A mitigation specialist would have uncovered mitigating evidence and altered the three-judge panel’s death sentences | Torres failed to show what additional mitigation would be found or how it would have changed the outcome; no prejudice established | No prejudice shown; failure to hire specialist did not meet Strickland prejudice standard |
| 4) Prosecutorial misconduct (Brady, destruction/withholding of evidence, extortion attempt re: mother) | Prosecution failed to produce/preserve Salvation Army video and sign-in sheets, failed to preserve house and Packer phone texts, and threatened Torres’ mother to coerce plea | No proof the State suppressed or altered material exculpatory evidence; counsel had access to materials; allegations about threats were unsupported | Allegations unproven; no Brady or due-process violation shown; claims denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution's nondisclosure of material favorable evidence violates due process)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (duty to preserve evidence turns on materiality and bad faith)
- Trombetta v. California, 467 U.S. 479 (duty to preserve evidence relevant to due process analysis)
- State v. Trotter, 259 Neb. 212 (circumstances in which prejudice from counsel can be presumed)
- State v. Nelson, 282 Neb. 767 (discussing preservation obligations and Brady-related principles)
- State v. Dubray, 294 Neb. 937 (Strickland framework and related standards for postconviction review)