State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418

Background

Patrick M. Pauly (born May 1997) was charged with four counts of first‑degree sexual assault based on four incidents testified to by the victim (K.H.), occurring between Jan. 1, 2008 and Jan. 1, 2016.
Victim testified to four separate penetrative assaults beginning when she was a young child; Pauly’s mother and brother provided testimony with some contradictions.
Pauly moved for directed verdict and to quash/dismiss for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (arguing juvenile court exclusive jurisdiction for offenses committed when he was under 14); motions were denied.
Jury convicted Pauly on all four counts. Presentence evaluations placed Pauly at low risk to reoffend and noted he was ≈14 at the time of offenses.
Sentencing court imposed concurrent 5‑year terms of probation (for each Class II felony), credited jail time, and ordered SORA registration; the State appealed as excessively lenient and Pauly cross‑appealed several trial rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Pauly)	Held
Whether probation (concurrent 5‑yr terms) was excessively lenient	Sentences are too lenient given gravity of repeated first‑degree sexual assaults; incarceration warranted	Probation appropriate given defendant’s age at offenses, lack of criminal history, low recidivism risk	Court affirmed: probation legally permissible and not an abuse of discretion under record facts
Whether district court lacked jurisdiction because some offenses occurred when Pauly was under 14	District court had jurisdiction (implied) to try since State charged him after he reached majority	Juvenile court had exclusive original jurisdiction for felonies committed when defendant was under 14, so district court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction	Court held jurisdiction depends on age at charging; Pauly was not a juvenile when charged so district court had jurisdiction; dismissal denied
Whether trial court erred in denying directed verdict / whether evidence was insufficient	Victim’s testimony and corroborating evidence sufficient for convictions	Testimony had inconsistencies, lack of physical corroboration, so directed verdict should have been granted	Pauly waived review of denial by putting on evidence after denial; on sufficiency review, evidence was sufficient—no plain error
Whether sentencing court erred by not making a SORA aggravated‑offense finding	Court should have made aggravation finding, affecting registration duration	Issue moot because State Patrol made lifetime‑registration determination	Issue deemed moot; parties agree Pauly must register for life, so no relief warranted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hamik, 262 Neb. 761, 635 N.W.2d 123 (discusses probation eligibility for Class II sex offenses)
State v. Gibson, 302 Neb. 833, 925 N.W.2d 678 (upholding probation for Class II sexual offense where defendant low risk and record supported fit of sentence)
State v. Wilson, 306 Neb. 875, 947 N.W.2d 704 (addressing who determines SORA aggravation—sentencing court versus State Patrol; interplay of statutes)
State v. Parks, 282 Neb. 454, 803 N.W.2d 761 (juvenile‑court jurisdiction ends at age of majority; age at charging controls transfer jurisdiction)
State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276, 900 N.W.2d 454 (standard for sufficiency review; appellate court defers to factfinder on credibility)