State v. Bershon, 983 N.W.2d 490

Defendant Paul D. Bershon, stepfather of victim B.B. (intellectually disabled), was charged with 13 counts of first‑degree sexual assault, 3 counts of incest, and 3 counts of intentional abuse of a vulnerable adult based on conduct spanning 2006–2018, including a witnessed May 16, 2018 incident.
Mother Leman witnessed the May 16, 2018 kitchen incident; B.B. later reported repeated sexual abuse beginning in 2006 after the family moved to Blair.
Trial evidence: B.B.’s testimony describing repeated oral and vaginal penetration; school and clinical testing showing low IQ and diagnoses supporting intellectual disability; therapist diagnosing PTSD consistent with sexual trauma.
Procedural history: earlier information and motion to quash resulted in dismissal/amendment of several time‑barred counts; operative information tried included counts through 2018.
At trial Bershon moved for directed verdict on sufficiency grounds (memory, capacity, consent); he did not raise due process/notice or double jeopardy claims in the district court.
Jury convicted on all charged counts; Bershon appealed asserting (1) inadequate notice/double jeopardy as to counts before May 16, 2018, and (2) insufficiency of evidence on consent/incapacity and on sexual abuse for the vulnerable adult counts. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Bershon)	Held
Preservation: adequacy of notice and double jeopardy for counts dated only by year	Claims objections waived because defendant did not move to quash or raise the constitutional claim below	Broad year ranges denied adequate notice and may permit multiple punishments; double jeopardy not apparent until after trial evidence failed to tie acts to distinct years	Waived: defendant failed to preserve notice and double jeopardy arguments in district court, so appellate review barred
Sufficiency: first‑degree sexual assault (consent / mental incapacity)	Evidence of repeated abuse, victim’s intellectual disability, household/authority dynamics, and victim’s fear supported coercion (nonphysical) and lack of consent	Victim showed some understanding of sex, had inconsistent memory by year, no physical force/threat or observable refusal, and no expert proving incapacity	Affirmed: under totality of circumstances coercion (including nonphysical) and relationship of authority supported finding of lack of consent; convictions supported on that alternative
Sufficiency: intentional abuse of a vulnerable adult (sexual abuse)	Vulnerable adult status shown by substantial mental impairment; sexual abuse includes statutory sexual assault/incest so same evidence suffices	Argues no evidence of sexual abuse	Affirmed: B.B. qualified as a vulnerable adult and sexual abuse established by the same evidence supporting sexual‑assault convictions

State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418, 972 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2022) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases)
State v. McCurdy, 301 Neb. 343, 918 N.W.2d 292 (Neb. 2018) (coercion can include nonphysical force; familial/authority relationship supports coercion finding)
State v. Davis, 310 Neb. 865, 969 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. 2022) (objections to information form or content must be raised by motion to quash)
State v. Smith, 294 Neb. 311, 883 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 2016) (plea waives defects in an information that could be raised by motion to quash, except fundamental defects)
State v. Meers, 257 Neb. 398, 598 N.W.2d 435 (Neb. 1999) (holding that failure to move to quash broad charging periods waives challenge on appeal)
State v. Reinhart, 283 Neb. 710, 811 N.W.2d 258 (Neb. 2012) (constitutional issues not presented to trial court are not preserved for appeal)