State v. Mora, 298 Neb. 185

Background

Defendant Felipe German Mora was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of third-degree sexual assault of a child based on assaults against his stepdaughter B.C., occurring over several years while she was under 12. He was acquitted on one first-degree count tied to a separate address.
At trial B.C. testified about repeated digital and penile-vaginal assaults at multiple residences; she reported the abuse to family members on September 19, 2015.
Medical witnesses (a sexual assault nurse examiner and a pediatrician at a child advocacy center) testified about their examinations and recounted statements B.C. made to them about the abuse.
A penile swab produced a DNA mixture that included B.C. as a major contributor; Mora’s DNA was excluded, but B.C.’s DNA was on the swab. Mora also allegedly admitted the abuse to his partner Marcela and to an inmate while jailed.
The district court admitted B.C.’s out-of-court statements under the medical-purpose exception and, over hearsay objections, allowed certain family statements as excited utterances; Mora challenged admissibility, sufficiency of the evidence, sentencing, and trial counsel’s effectiveness on direct appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mora)	Held
Admissibility under medical-purpose hearsay exception	Statements to medical examiners were made to obtain diagnosis/treatment and were pertinent	Statements identifying perpetrator were not reasonably pertinent to medical care or were investigatory	Court: Admissible — statements to medical personnel were for diagnosis/treatment and identity was pertinent given familial abuse context
Admissibility as excited utterance	Family testimony recounting B.C.’s statements were spontaneous reactions to a startling event	Statements related to uncle’s touching, not Mora’s conduct, so not tied to the asserted startling event	Court: Even assuming admission was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (cumulative evidence sufficed)
Sufficiency of the evidence	Evidence (victim testimony, DNA, admissions) established elements of charged offenses	Challenges focused on inconsistencies in B.C.’s testimony, DNA ambiguity, and reliability of alleged admissions	Court: Viewing evidence in State’s favor, a rational jury could convict; sufficiency upheld
Excessiveness / sentencing discretion	Sentences within statutory ranges and appropriate given facts	Argued court should impose minimums, avoid life terms, and run sentences concurrently	Court: No abuse of discretion; court properly weighed factors and imposed consecutive sentences
Ineffective assistance of counsel (various claims)	N/A (State defends record sufficiency)	Alleged poor communication, bad advice re: testifying, failure to retest/retain DNA expert, and failure to identify/call character witnesses	Court: Many claims were pleaded but the record was insufficient to resolve them on direct appeal; some claims not stated with requisite specificity and thus preserved for postconviction review

Key Cases Cited

State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 (standard for appellate review of hearsay rulings and factual findings)
State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 (standard for sufficiency review and plain error framework)
State v. Duncan, 293 Neb. 359 (application of hearsay rules)
State v. Vigil, 283 Neb. 129 (identity of perpetrator can be pertinent to medical diagnosis/treatment in familial abuse)
State v. Britt, 293 Neb. 381 (excited-utterance doctrine and spontaneity rationale)
State v. Grant, 293 Neb. 163 (harmless-error standard for evidentiary rulings in criminal cases)
State v. Dehning, 296 Neb. 537 (factors courts customarily consider at sentencing)
State v. Artis, 296 Neb. 172 (trial court discretion to impose consecutive sentences)
State v. Filholm, 287 Neb. 763 (procedural rules on raising ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)
State v. Abdullah, 289 Neb. 123 (requirement of specificity for uncalled witness claims on direct appeal)