State v. Anders, 311 Neb. 958

Background

Defendant Douglas H. Anders, an Olympic weightlifting trainer, was charged with first‑degree sexual assault under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑319(1) for sexually penetrating K.G. while she was his trainee, beginning when she was a minor.
K.G. testified Anders performed “adjustments,” massages, inserted objects, and eventually engaged in penile intercourse, telling her such acts were necessary for her athletic recovery; she often did not resist because of trust, manipulation, and threats to her training.
A second witness, M.C., described similar improper physical examinations; the trial court held a § 27‑414 hearing and admitted M.C.’s testimony as evidence of similar sexual‑offense conduct.
Investigators recovered phone records and text messages between Anders and K.G.; other acquaintances corroborated K.G.’s reports about disclosure and timeline.
After a bench trial the court found K.G. credible, convicted Anders of first‑degree sexual assault (finding deception and coercion), and sentenced him to 25–30 years’ imprisonment; Anders appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, excessive sentence, and ineffective trial counsel.
Anders changed counsel multiple times; several ineffective‑assistance claims were raised on direct appeal but the record was often insufficient to resolve many of them.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Anders)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove sexual penetration and lack of consent	K.G.’s testimony, corroborating texts and witnesses, and M.C.’s similar‑act testimony suffice to prove penetration and that consent was induced by deception or obtained by coercion.	K.G.’s testimony was inconsistent/uncorroborated; it was unreasonable for her to believe Anders’ explanation, so evidence is insufficient.	Conviction affirmed. Court will not reassess credibility; K.G.’s testimony alone can support conviction; deception as to nature/purpose was established.
Proper interpretation of § 28‑318(8)(a)(iv) (deception)	Statute requires deception as to nature/purpose; deception means words or conduct causing victim to believe what is false.	Anders urged an objective‑reasonableness requirement for the victim’s belief.	Held that statute has no added reasonable‑reliance element; court will not add words to penal statute; evidence supported deception.
Ineffective assistance of trial counsel (multiple subclaims: failure to obtain experts, object to hearsay/texts, impeach witnesses, seek therapy records, etc.)	Many objections and expert issues could have affected credibility and created reasonable doubt.	Trial counsel made motions, raised sufficiency at close, pursued strategy; many appellate claims lack specificity or the record to review.	Most claims denied for lack of merit or insufficient record; where record shows counsel acted (e.g., impeachment re: ex‑partner) no deficiency; no prejudice shown.
Admissibility of M.C.’s testimony as similar‑act evidence under § 27‑414	M.C.’s conduct is sufficiently similar and the court properly conducted a § 27‑414/§ 27‑403 balancing to admit the evidence.	Anders argued M.C.’s conduct was dissimilar and unduly prejudicial.	Trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting M.C.’s testimony; counsel not ineffective for failing to renew objection.
Sentence excessive / cruel and unusual	N/A (State defended sentencing decision)	Sentence of 25–30 years is excessive and disproportionate.	Sentence within statutory limits; court considered proper factors; not an abuse of discretion and not constitutionally disproportionate.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931 (Neb. 2019) (standards for raising ineffective‑assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801 (Neb. 2021) (bench‑trial sufficiency review and appellate standards)
State v. Taylor, 310 Neb. 376 (Neb. 2021) (statutory interpretation principles; plain‑meaning approach)
State v. Trammell, 231 Neb. 137 (Neb. 1989) (procedure for obtaining therapy records and related evidence challenges)