State v. Mora, 298 Neb. 185

Defendant Felipe German Mora was charged with four counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of third-degree sexual assault involving victim B.C., who was under age 12 during the charged period.
Victim testified to repeated sexual contact and penetration by Mora at multiple residences between 2010 and 2015.
After disclosures in September 2015, medical exams were performed; examiners testified about statements B.C. made during their evaluations.
A penile swab from Mora contained a DNA mixture that included B.C. as a major contributor; Mora’s DNA was excluded.
Witnesses testified that Mora made inculpatory statements to his partner and to a jailmate.
Jury convicted Mora on four counts (acquitted on one count); district court imposed lengthy consecutive sentences. Mora appealed, raising hearsay admission, sufficiency of the evidence, excessiveness of sentence, and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mora)	Held
Admissibility under medical-purpose hearsay exception	Statements to sexual-assault nurse and follow-up physician were made for diagnosis/treatment and thus admissible	Statements were not reasonably pertinent to treatment; identification of abuser not necessary	Court: admissible — statements were made during medical exams and relevant to diagnosis/treatment (dual medical/investigatory purpose)
Admissibility under excited-utterance exception	Statements to relatives were spontaneous and excited, thus admissible	The startling event (uncle’s touching) was unrelated to Mora’s assaults, so statements were not excited utterances	Court: assumed possible error but found any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (evidence cumulative)
Sufficiency of the evidence	Testimony, medical findings, DNA (B.C. as major contributor on penile swab), and admissions supported convictions	Attack on credibility and inconsistencies in victim’s testimony and reliability of admissions/DNA	Court: viewing evidence in State’s favor, rational juror could convict; sufficiency upheld
Ineffective assistance of counsel	N/A (State argues record insufficient for plain-resolution)	Trial counsel failed to communicate, advise re: testifying, retest swabs/retain DNA expert, and call character witnesses	Court: many claims insufficiently particular or the record inadequate to resolve on direct appeal; preserved for postconviction review where appropriate

State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 (standard of review for hearsay rulings)
State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 (standard for sufficiency review; plain-error discussion)
State v. Duncan, 293 Neb. 359 (sentencing abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (identity of perpetrator can be pertinent to medical diagnosis/treatment)
State v. Britt, 293 Neb. 381 (elements of excited-utterance exception)
State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 (harmless-error framework for erroneous evidentiary rulings)
State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537 (sentencing considerations and factors)
State v. Artis, 296 Neb. 172 (trial court discretion to impose consecutive sentences)
State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 (requirement to raise ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal when apparent in record)
State v. Abdullah, 289 Neb. 123 (specificity required for uncalled-witness claims)
State v. Ash, 293 Neb. 583 (requirements for raising ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)