State v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 01 July 2016
• Docket Number: No. S–15–139,S–15–139
• Citation: 294 Neb. 1,880 N.W.2d 642
• Parties: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Christopher A. Edwards, appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

294 Neb. 1

880 N.W.2d 642

State of Nebraska, appellee,

v.Christopher A. Edwards, appellant.

No. S–15–139

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Filed July 1, 2016

Brian Munnelly and Jerry L. Soucie, Lincoln, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and James D. Smith, Lincoln, for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Miller–Lerman, Cassel, and Stacy, JJ.

Wright, J.

I. NATURE OF CASE

In March 2007, a jury convicted Christopher A. Edwards of the crimes of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony in connection with the disappearance of Jessica O'Grady. In this appeal, Edwards maintains that some of the evidence presented against him at trial was fabricated by David Kofoed, a former supervisor of the Douglas County Crime Scene Investigation Division (CSI) who was discovered to have fabricated and planted evidence in two different murder cases.¹ Edwards also contends that his former attorney, Steven Lefler, acted under a conflict of interest during his trial and during the pendency of his direct appeal.

II. BACKGROUND

This is Edwards' third appeal to this court. We affirmed Edwards' convictions on direct appeal in State v. Edwards (Edwards I ).² Edwards then filed a motion for postconviction relief, which the district court denied without an evidentiary hearing. In his second appeal in State v. Edwards (Edwards II ),³ we affirmed the district court's order on all but two of Edwards' claims. With respect to those claims, we remanded the cause for an evidentiary hearing on two issues:

1) whether Edwards was denied due process by the State's knowing use of fabricated evidence to obtain his convictions and (2) whether Edwards' trial counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest. After the remand but before the evidentiary hearing, Edwards filed in this case a “Motion for Leave to File Second Verified Motion for Postconviction Relief,” which motion the district court denied. An evidentiary hearing was held, and the district court denied Edwards' motion for postconviction relief. Edwards appeals for a third time, challenging the district court's refusal to grant leave to amend his original motion for postconviction relief and the district court's denial of postconviction relief.

1. Edwards I

In June 2006, Edwards was charged by information with the crimes of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony in connection with the disappearance of O'Grady. O'Grady was last seen on May 10, 2006, leaving her apartment on her way to Edwards' residence.

Omaha police interviewed Edwards and obtained permission to search his bedroom at his aunt's house. A short sword was found in the closet, and blood was found on the sword. Other evidence found in Edwards' bedroom was set forth in Edwards I as follows:

Spattered blood was found on the nightstand, headboard, clock radio, and ceiling above the bed. Edwards was asked to explain the bloodstains on the headboard and clock, and replied that “he had cut his wrist.” A small bloodstain was located on the top of the mattress. Edwards was asked about the bloodstain and replied that “he had intercourse with a girlfriend who was menstruating.” But on further investigation, a very large, damp bloodstain was found on the underside of the mattress, covering most of the bottom side of the mattress. Bloodstains were later found on the bedding, a chair in the room, a bookcase, and laundry baskets. Luminol, a chemical used to locate where blood has been cleaned up, was applied to the walls of the room. The Luminol suggested blood on large areas of the south and west walls. Stains that appeared to be blood were found on the ceiling, covered up by white paint.⁴

A search of Edwards' car and the garage was also conducted:

A shovel and a pair of garden shears were found in Edwards' vehicle. A bloodstain was found on the handle of the garden shears. More bloodstains were found on the trunk gasket of the car and on the underside of the trunk lid. A black, plastic trash bag was found in the garage next to the vehicle. The bag contained two bloodstained towels and a receipt from a drugstore in west Omaha. Edwards had been videotaped purchasing poster paint, white shoe polish, and correction fluid at that drugstore on May 11, 2006, at 7:41 p.m. The poster paint was chemically identical to that found on Edwards' ceiling.⁵

The DNA profiles recovered from the blood on the above items were all consistent with O'Grady's DNA profile. The chances of another unrelated Caucasian person having the same DNA profile as the DNA profile recovered from those items differed depending on the item, but the chances ranged from 1 in 15.6 billion to 1 in 26.6 quintillion.⁶

Edwards was convicted of both crimes for which he was charged, and he appealed both convictions, arguing, among other things, that the evidence was insufficient to prove that O'Grady had been murdered, because her body had not been found. We affirmed Edwards' convictions in Edwards I.

2. Edwards II

In July 2010, Edwards filed a motion for postconviction relief. We summarized the claims set forth in that motion in Edwards II :

Edwards claimed that the State violated his due process rights by presenting fabricated evidence during his trial. Edwards alleged that while investigating O'Grady's murder, ... Kofoed, a supervisor of [CSI], planted blood evidence to be used against Edwards. Edwards' allegations and attachments set out a history of Kofoed's unlawful conduct during other murder investigations. Edwards alleged that the State's introduction of forensic evidence at his trial that had been falsified by law enforcement officials constituted outrageous government conduct that violated his right to due process.

In addition to his due process claim, Edwards alleged claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Edwards was represented by the same three attorneys at trial and on appeal. First, he alleged that although his lead attorney, ... Lefler, should have known that Kofoed was suspected of planting evidence during the 2006 murder investigation, Lefler did not investigate this information or effectively impeach Kofoed at trial. Edwards alleged that Lefler was ineffective because he was a friend of Kofoed.

Edwards also claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to retain a DNA expert to testify at trial. He alleged that an expert could have testified that the blood on his mattress came from two contributors—neither of which was Edwards. He claimed that such testimony would have supported his theory that O'Grady had experienced a miscarriage, which would have explained the blood on his mattress. He also claimed that his counsel should have obtained additional DNA testing after learning that mixed DNA samples had been found. He alleged that this evidence could have opened the door to other possible theories about the blood on the mattress. Finally, Edwards alleged that his trial counsel failed to effectively investigate (1) calls made to O'Grady's aunt after O'Grady's disappearance, concerning the location of O'Grady's car; (2) whether O'Grady had contacted an online travel agency around the time of her disappearance; and (3) whether an “ ‘alternate suspect’ ” existed.

Regarding his direct appeal, Edwards alleged that his appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise (1) the trial court's denial of his motion to change venue, (2) the due process violation related to his claim of falsified evidence, and (3) his other claims of his trial counsel's ineffective assistance.⁷

In August 2011, the district court sustained the State's motion to dismiss Edwards' motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. Edwards appealed.

In September 2012, in Edwards II, we concluded that only two issues raised in Edwards' motion for postconviction relief warranted an evidentiary hearing: (1) whether Edwards was denied due process by the State's knowing use of fabricated evidence to obtain his convictions and (2) whether Edwards' trial counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest. As to Edwards' other claims, we determined that the district court properly denied Edwards postconviction relief.

3. Edwards' Motion for Leave to Amend

After the remand in Edwards II, but before the evidentiary hearing on the two claims described above, Edwards filed in this case his motion for leave to file a second motion for postconviction relief. In support of his motion, Edwards attached a document titled “Second Verified Motion for Postconviction Relief.” That document set forth five claims: (1) Edwards' due process rights were violated because his convictions were based on fabricated evidence; (2) Edwards' due process rights were violated because the State failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence; (3) Edwards' attorney did not provide conflict-free representation, as required by the 6th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; (4) the step instruction on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter failed to distinguish between the intent to kill associated with second degree murder and the intent to kill resulting from a “sudden quarrel”; and (5) cumulative error deprived Edwards of his right to substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.

The district court implicitly construed Edwards' motion for leave to file a second motion as a motion for leave to amend his original postconviction motion. The court overruled the motion to amend, reasoning that it was without power to affect the rights and duties outside the scope of this court's remand in Edwards II. Edwards accepts the court's characterization of his motion (as a motion to amend) but appeals the court's decision overruling the motion, arguing that he should have been allowed to amend. Because both Edwards and the district court treat Edwards' motion as a motion to amend, and because Edwards filed the motion for leave to file a second motion under the same docket number as the original postconviction motion, we will also treat...