State v. Wood, 966 N.W.2d 825

Background

Marvin L. Wood was convicted of first-degree sexual assault of a child arising from an alleged assault during a sleepover; the victim was 8 at the time and 9 at trial.
Medical exam: pediatrician observed recent redness and a superficial laceration consistent with possible digital or penile penetration; some findings could be noncriminal.
Laboratory results: no semen detected; male DNA was detected on external genital swabs but yielded no identifiable Y-STR profile; the victim’s underwear contained a three-person epithelial DNA mixture that included a minor contributor consistent with Wood.
Pretrial, Wood (indigent) moved for appointment and payment of an independent DNA expert; the district court denied the motion for lack of a sufficiently particularized showing of necessity.
During trial the court (1) barred further use of the forensic-interview video to refresh the victim after she became upset and (2) sustained an objection to asking the victim’s mother about whether Price (the mother’s partner/Wood’s employer) was a convicted felon.
On appeal Wood raised trial error and multiple ineffective-assistance claims; the Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, rejecting most claims and leaving the question of counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to better support the DNA-expert motion unresolved on direct appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of court-appointed DNA expert	State: defendant failed to make particularized, timely showing of necessity; trial court has discretion	Wood: due process required appointment because DNA issue was significant and defense counsel lacked expertise; also argued Catch‑22 and counsel ineffective for weak motion	Denial affirmed. Court requires timely, particularized showing that specialized issue is likely significant and expert assistance reasonably necessary. Record did not show abuse of discretion; ineffective-assistance claim re: supporting the motion not resolved on direct appeal.
Use of forensic-interview video to refresh witness	State: playing the video/impeaching via video was improper and §27-612(only writings) controls; procedure used didn’t comply; trial court discretion to limit cross-exam	Wood: right to confront and refresh victim’s recollection; needed to impeach inconsistencies	Court upheld exclusion. Defense did not preserve Confrontation Clause objection; trial court acted within discretion to limit refreshment/impeachment to avoid harassment/prejudice and to permit other impeachment means.
Impeachment by showing Price was a convicted felon	State: irrelevant and improper character impeachment	Wood: Price’s felony would support theory of collusion (mother and Price caused fabrication) and attack credibility of Price’s out-of-court statements	Court affirmed exclusion. Price’s out-of-court statements were not shown to concern contested matters where felony impeachment would be material; relevancy ruling not an abuse of discretion.
Multiple ineffective-assistance claims (including failure to request lesser-included instruction)	Wood: trial counsel was deficient in many respects (DNA motion support, handling DNA evidence, cross-examination, failing to request attempt instruction, inadequate investigation)	State: most choices were reasonable strategy; record refutes deficiency or prejudice; direct appeal record insufficient for some claims	Most ineffective-assistance claims denied. Strategy choices (cross-exam, admitting exhibit showing no Y-STR profile, forgoing lesser-included instruction) were reasonable or refuted by record. Only claim left unresolved on direct appeal: whether counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately support the motion for a court‑appointed DNA expert.

Key Cases Cited

Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (indigent defendant’s right to psychiatric expert where sanity is likely a significant factor)
McWilliams v. Dunn, 137 S. Ct. 1790 (U.S. 2017) (further discussion of right to independent mental-health expert and Ake standards)
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor procedural-due-process balancing test)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862 (Neb. 2015) (caution about misleading or inconclusive DNA testimony absent statistical context)
State v. Molina, 271 Neb. 488 (Neb. 2006) (trial court’s discretion to exclude extrinsic evidence when probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice or confusion)
State v. Turco, 6 Neb. App. 725 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998) (denial of appointed expert when vigorous cross-examination of State’s expert would suffice)
State v. Baue, 258 Neb. 968 (Neb. 2000) (discretionary nature of appointing expert witnesses in criminal cases)