State v. Olbricht
294 Neb. 974
| Neb. | 2016Background
- 3-year-old A.M. was hospitalized with a subdural hemorrhage, brain infarct, and a lacerated liver; doctors concluded the injuries presented a substantial risk of death and were nonaccidental.
- A.M. had multiple prior suspicious bruises and injuries while in the care of Cody Olbricht, who lived with A.M.’s mother and was called “daddy” by the child.
- Medical testimony described A.M. as a "battered child" with multisystem, inflicted injuries; physicians estimated the brain injury was acute (hours to days old) while the liver injury timing was uncertain.
- Olbricht was tried by the district court on a charge of knowing and intentional child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury (§ 28-707); the district court convicted him after a bench trial and imposed an indeterminate sentence.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, holding the evidence was insufficient because it did not prove Olbricht was the sole caregiver during the timeframe the serious injuries occurred; the State sought further review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Olbricht) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support conviction for knowing and intentional child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury | Circumstantial and medical evidence (battered-child pattern, victim identification, prior injuries while in Olbricht’s care, timing consistent with his care) suffice to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Evidence is circumstantial and does not exclude other caregivers; no proof Olbricht had exclusive care when the brain bleed and liver laceration occurred | Reversed Court of Appeals; evidence sufficient when viewed in light most favorable to State — exclusive care not required |
| Whether exclusive or sole custody is required to convict for permitting/causing child abuse | Not required by statute; § 28-707 criminalizes knowingly, intentionally, or negligently causing or permitting abuse, even if others had access | Argues others had access during relevant timeframe so State failed to exclude alternative perpetrators | Held: Statute does not require exclusivity; presence of others does not preclude conviction if circumstantial evidence supports guilt |
| Proper standard in reviewing circumstantial evidence on appeal | Apply usual sufficiency standard; do not apply an “accused’s rule” requiring exclusion of every hypothesis of innocence | Urges that circumstantial evidence was insufficient because other hypotheses (other caregivers) were not disproven | Held: Reiterated that accused’s rule is rejected; circumstantial evidence is as probative as direct evidence and sufficiency review defers to factfinder |
| Excessive sentence and correction of oral vs. written sentence | State argued sentence within statutory limits; written order differed from oral pronouncement | Olbricht argued 18–30 years was excessive; also challenged sentence | Held: Oral sentence controls; modified to reflect 15–30 years (oral pronouncement). Sentence not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Buchanan, 210 Neb. 20 (rejecting accused’s rule; circumstantial evidence may support conviction)
- State v. Pierce, 248 Neb. 536 (circumstantial evidence is not inherently less probative; proper standard of review for sufficiency)
- State v. Morley, 239 Neb. 141 (rejection of prior language reviving accused’s rule)
- State v. Cullen, 292 Neb. 30 (affirming child-abuse conviction despite multiple persons having access during injurious timeframe)