State v. Draper, 295 Neb. 88

Background

Peter F. Draper was convicted after a second trial of intentional child abuse resulting in death (Class IB) and intentional child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury (Class II) for injuries that led to the death of his 2‑year‑old grandson, Joe Jr.
Autopsy and medical testimony established multiple recent traumatic injuries (skull fracture, pelvic fracture, ruptured bowel, recent rib fractures, soft‑tissue injuries) and ruled the death a homicide attributable to blunt force trauma.
Joe Jr. lived in a trailer with his mother (Laura Rinehart), Draper, and Draper’s wife Nancy; Rinehart later pled to a reduced charge and testified that she witnessed Draper physically abuse Joe Jr., identifying a specific incident she believed led to the fatal injuries.
The State presented medical experts, law enforcement, and social services witnesses; Rinehart was the only witness to specifically identify Draper as the abuser.
Trial evidence included testimony from child‑welfare/social‑work and CFS personnel about prior visits and confrontations with Draper; the court gave a limiting instruction for some of that testimony.
The jury convicted Draper on both counts; the court imposed consecutive sentences totaling effectively life plus a lengthy term, within statutory limits; Draper appealed asserting insufficiency of evidence, evidentiary errors, and excessive sentence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Draper)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for homicide and serious‑injury counts	Evidence (Rinehart’s ID plus medical and corroborating testimony) supports convictions	Rinehart was incredible and her testimony alone was insufficient; she could have been the perpetrator	Affirmed: viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational juror could convict; single‑witness ID can suffice when corroborated
Admission of Rinehart’s lay statement speculating cause of bruise above ear	Statement was admissible or, if erroneous, harmless given overwhelming medical evidence	Testimony was speculative lay opinion and should have been excluded	Assuming error, court found it harmless: verdict was surely unattributable to that testimony
Admission of prior interactions/testimony from social workers and CFS worker (Rule 404/character evidence)	Testimony was relevant to household control, fear, and corroboration of Rinehart; limiting instruction given for some witnesses	Testimony was irrelevant, prejudicial character evidence under Rule 404 and should have been excluded	Assuming error, court held admission harmless given other properly admitted corroborating evidence
Sentence excessive (double life exposure)	Sentences within statutory range but argued excessive given age, health, lack of record	Sentence amounted to a de facto double life sentence and was disproportionate	Affirmed: sentences within statutory limits; sentencing court did not abuse discretion in weighing factors

Key Cases Cited

State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777 (prior direct appeal reversing for cumulative error)
State v. Newman, 290 Neb. 572 (standard on sufficiency review and credibilty deference)
State v. Smith, 292 Neb. 434 (single‑witness corroboration principle)
State v. Cullen, 292 Neb. 30 (harmless error and evidentiary review)
State v. Jenkins, 294 Neb. 475 (cumulative admission and harmlessness analysis)
State v. Carpenter, 293 Neb. 860 (standards for appellate review of sentences)