State v. Wood
310 Neb. 391
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Defendant Marvin L. Wood was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree sexual assault of a child (victim was 8 at the time of the alleged offense; 9 at trial).
- Medical exam: no semen detected; pediatrician observed recent redness and a superficial laceration possibly consistent with penetration; victim exhibited behavioral changes after the sleepover.
- Forensic testing: no Y-STR profile obtained from male DNA on external genital swabs; epithelial (touch) DNA mixture on the victim’s underwear included a minor contributor consistent with Wood (small percentage); many samples had insufficient male DNA for full profiling.
- Pretrial, Wood (indigent) moved for court-funded appointment of a DNA expert; the district court denied the motion for lack of a particularized preliminary showing of necessity. Wood also attempted to refresh/impeach the victim with her forensic-interview video and to elicit that a third party (Price) was a convicted felon; both attempts were restricted by the court.
- Wood raised multiple claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including failing to adequately support the motion for a DNA expert, mishandling DNA evidence and cross-examination, and failing to request a lesser-included instruction). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and rejected most claims; it did not resolve on direct appeal the ineffective-assistance claim that counsel failed adequately to support the DNA-expert motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Denial of court-funded DNA expert | Defense gave no particularized showing; State's expert available for cross-examination; court not required to fund a fishing expedition | Needed an independent DNA expert to interpret touch DNA, Y-STR results, and lab methodology; denial violated due process | Denial affirmed. No abuse of discretion—defense failed to make the required preliminary, particularized showing under Ake/Mathews framework; ineffective-assistance claim about counsel's support for the motion not resolved on direct appeal. |
| 2) Prohibition on using forensic-interview video to refresh/impeach victim | Playing the video to refresh then impeach was improper under the evidence rules; alternative impeachment methods existed | Video was necessary to refresh inconsistent statements and permit effective cross-examination; ruling impaired confrontation | No reversible error. Defense waived confrontation argument; trial court acted within its discretion to limit use of the video; alternative avenues (deposition, interviewer testimony) remained. |
| 3) Excluding question about Price’s felony status | Price’s criminal history was irrelevant to the mother’s testimony and risked improper character evidence | Felony status would impeach Price and support a theory of collusion to fabricate the allegation | Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse discretion; Price’s felony status was not relevant to the out-of-court statements identified and credibility was not a disputed issue requiring that impeachment. |
| 4) Ineffective-assistance claims (lesser-included instruction, DNA evidence handling, cross-examination) | Counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; record shows considered decisions; most claims lack proof of deficient performance or prejudice | Counsel failed to investigate, mishandled DNA strategy and evidence, improperly cross-examined, and omitted a lesser-included instruction | Most claims rejected. Record affirmatively rebuts claims of deficiency for cross-examination, admission/usage of DNA evidence, and failure to request lesser instruction; only the claim that counsel inadequately supported the DNA-expert motion remains unresolved on direct appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor procedural-due-process test for determining required procedural protections)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (indigent defendant may be entitled to state-funded psychiatric expert when sanity is a significant factor)
- McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790 (U.S. 2017) (clarified Ake principles regarding independence and access to mental-health experts)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test: deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (Neb. 2015) (DNA evidence can mislead juries absent statistical context; courts must guard against misleading inconclusive DNA testimony)
- State v. Molina, 271 Neb. 488 (Neb. 2006) (trial court discretion to exclude extrinsic evidence and recordings when probative value is outweighed by prejudice or confusion)
- State v. Turco, 6 Neb. App. 725 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998) (defense not entitled to public funds for an expert without a showing that vigorous cross-examination of the State’s expert would be inadequate)