State v. Hurd, 949 N.W.2d 339

Kenneth E. Hurd was charged with incest and pled no contest to misdemeanor child abuse under a plea agreement in which the State agreed to recommend probation.
A presentence investigation (PSI) included a victim impact statement completed via the probation office questionnaire; the victim and probation officer recommended probation.
At sentencing the State proffered a factual basis alleging emotional and physical abuse and asked that the victim be allowed to read a separate, written letter; the court allowed it over Hurd’s objection and admitted the letter into evidence.
Hurd was sentenced to 1 year’s imprisonment (the statutory maximum for the misdemeanor) and appealed.
On appeal Hurd argued (1) the victim could not both submit a PSI impact statement and also offer/read a separate written statement at sentencing under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1848, and (2) the court improperly relied on allegations underlying dismissed, more serious charges when imposing the maximum sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 81-1848 permits a victim to provide a written/oral impact statement for the PSI and also submit/read a separate written impact statement at sentencing	The statute’s plain language grants both rights; victim may submit both	Allowing both (and reading a separate letter) violated the statute / prejudiced Hurd	Court: statute’s language plainly allows both; permitting the letter (and reading it) was within court’s discretion and Hurd showed no prejudice
Whether the court abused its discretion by considering allegations underlying dismissed/greater charges when imposing the maximum sentence	A sentencing court has wide discretion and may consider dismissed charges/facts in determining sentence	Considering dismissed, more serious allegations improperly treated Hurd as guilty and denied probation	Court: sentencing court acted within its broad discretion; considering underlying facts was permissible and sentence was not excessive

State v. Galindo, 278 Neb. 599, 774 N.W.2d 190 (2009) (victim-rights provisions set baseline rights and do not limit sentencing court discretion)
State v. Thieszen, 300 Neb. 112, 912 N.W.2d 696 (2018) (reiterating Galindo on victim-rights baseline)
State v. Janis, 207 Neb. 491, 299 N.W.2d 447 (1980) (trial judge has wide discretion to consider various information when sentencing)
State v. Rapp, 184 Neb. 156, 165 N.W.2d 715 (1969) (same principle on sentencing evidence sources)
State v. Scott, 284 Neb. 703, 824 N.W.2d 668 (2012) (availability of written material to court and prejudice analysis)