State v. Greer, 979 N.W.2d 101

Christina M. Greer was tried on 13 counts consolidated from four cases alleging sexual assault, child abuse, witness tampering, and child enticement; convicted on 11 counts and sentenced to an aggregate 64–102 years’ imprisonment.
Pretrial proceedings were prolonged by the State’s motions under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-404 and 27-414 to admit other-bad-acts and prior sexual-conduct evidence, including testimony about alleged "grooming."
The State sought to introduce expert testimony about "grooming" from Colleen Brazil, forensic-interview program manager at a child advocacy center; the district court found Brazil qualified but limited her from opining that Greer had actually groomed victims.
During trial the court initially read an incomplete version of jury instruction No. 4 (definition of "penetration") and, after a recess, reread the complete pattern instruction including the penetration definition; the complete instruction was sent back with the jury.
Greer challenged (1) the instruction procedure as prejudicial, (2) admission of Brazil’s testimony as expert testimony under Daubert/Schafersman, and (3) the excessiveness/consecutive nature of her sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument (Greer)	Held
Jury instruction reread (penetration)	Procedure was proper; jury received correct, complete pattern instruction	Rereading the penetration definition after a recess emphasized it and prejudiced Greer; court should have reread all instructions	No reversible error: record lacks the initial incomplete text; Greer failed to show prejudice under harmless-error review
Admission of Brazil’s testimony (grooming expert)	Brazil is a qualified child-advocacy expert; her testimony on grooming is relevant and more probative than prejudicial	Brazil’s grooming testimony is unreliable/Daubert-inapplicable and district court failed to perform gatekeeping	Admission affirmed: Daubert not implicated because Brazil did not opine that Greer groomed victims; even if Daubert applied, court properly found Brazil qualified and did not abuse its discretion
Sentencing — consecutive terms / excessive	Sentences within statutory limits; consecutive sentences appropriate because separate counts required proof of different elements	Many counts arose from the same series of events and should run concurrently; aggregate sentence excessive	Sentences affirmed: court considered required factors; counts required distinct proof so consecutive sentences were not an abuse of discretion

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeping role for admissibility of expert scientific testimony)
Schafersman v. Agland Coop., 262 Neb. 215 (2001) (Nebraska precedent on expert admissibility and gatekeeping)
State v. Edwards, 28 Neb. App. 893 (2020) (Court of Appeals decision discussing expert testimony on grooming)
State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55 (2012) (instruction error may be harmless or reversible depending on prejudice and written materials provided to jury)
State v. Andersen, 238 Neb. 32 (1991) (test for imposing consecutive sentences: whether separate counts require proof of additional elements)