State v. Tucker, 301 Neb. 856

Defendant Carlos A. Tucker, age 31 at the time, was charged with one count of first-degree sexual assault of a child and two counts of incest based on testimony that he instructed and participated in sexual acts with his girlfriend’s children (M.T., age 11; E.T., age 12; R.T., age 10).
The children testified Tucker lured them with games and candy, directed undressing and sexual acts (including cunnilingus and fellatio), and that semen from Tucker was observed and later detected on the living room rug.
Semen from the rug produced an autosomal DNA match to Tucker with an extremely small random-match probability; Y-STR testing of the interior of M.T.’s shorts identified a mixed male Y-profile with a major profile matching Tucker and a U.S. Y-STR database frequency estimate of 1-in-1,842 for African Americans.
Tucker moved in limine to exclude Y-STR evidence under Daubert/Schafersman and Rule 403, arguing Y-STR is inherently unreliable and prejudicial and that the database/statistics were not representative; the district court held a Daubert hearing, admitted the evidence, and the jury convicted on all counts.
Tucker was sentenced to 30–50 years for the sexual assault count and consecutive 10–20 year terms for each incest count; he appealed arguing (1) improper admission of Y-STR evidence, (2) insufficiency of the evidence, and (3) excessive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Y-STR DNA evidence	State: Y-STR is a recognized forensic tool; expert provided methodology and statistical context so probative value admitted under Daubert/Schafersman and Rule 403.	Tucker: Y-STR is inherently prejudicial and unreliable; database may be unrepresentative making frequency estimates misleading.	Court: Admissible — Daubert/Schafersman satisfied; statistical limitations were explained to jury; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Sufficiency of evidence to convict	State: Victim testimony, physical evidence, autosomal DNA on rug, and Y-STR on shorts collectively support convictions.	Tucker: Children’s testimony was inconsistent and not cohesive, so conviction is unsupported.	Court: Evidence sufficient — juror credibility determinations control; viewed in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could convict.
Sentencing excessive	State: sentence within statutory limits and based on relevant sentencing factors including defendant’s history and crime severity.	Tucker: District court failed to meaningfully weigh his traumatic childhood, mental illness, and rehabilitation needs.	Court: No abuse of discretion — court considered PSR and mitigating factors but permissibly weighed serious criminal history, offense nature, and lack of responsibility; consecutive within discretion.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (standard for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
Schafersman v. Agland Coop., 262 Neb. 215 (Neb. 2001) (applying Daubert framework in Nebraska)
State v. Trotter, 299 Neb. 392 (Neb. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (Neb. 2015) (need to present statistical context for DNA evidence)
State v. Wells, 300 Neb. 296 (Neb. 2018) (standards for sufficiency review)