State v. Senteney, 307 Neb. 702

Background

In 2017 A.B. (then 19) reported that her grandfather, Larry B. Senteney, had sexually abused her beginning when she was about 13–16 in Nebraska and Wyoming; law enforcement investigated and obtained an arrest warrant.
On July 25, 2018 Investigator Robert Hackett interviewed Senteney at his Wyoming residence; body‑cam video of the interview was admitted at trial. Hackett observed nervousness, retreating behavior, and other conduct he testified can indicate deception.
A.B. testified to multiple specific incidents (groping, marker penetration of her thigh, placement of her hand on his penis, sexual touching at a theater, etc.). Two other women gave similar‑acts testimony admitted under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27‑414; a third proffered witness was excluded.
Hackett testified about interview technique and identified specific “indicators of deception” he observed in Senteney and, on redirect, stated he felt Senteney was being deceptive. Defense counsel made no contemporaneous objection and requested no limiting instruction.
A jury convicted Senteney of two counts of third‑degree sexual assault of a child, one count attempted incest, and one count attempted first‑degree sexual assault. The court imposed consecutive 3–5 year prison terms on each count.
On appeal Senteney argued (1) the court committed plain error by admitting Hackett’s testimony about deception and (2) the sentences were excessive because probation should have been imposed. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Senteney)	Held
Admission of investigator testimony that defendant displayed indicators of deception and was deceptive	Hackett could testify to observable behavior; any opinion that went too far was harmless because jury assessed credibility, other evidence supported convictions, and prosecutor did not emphasize it	Testimony invaded the jury’s province and improperly vouched for guilt; plain error because defense did not object at trial	No plain error. Any improper opinion was not a miscarriage of justice; lack of objection and context (video, instructions, other evidence) foreclosed plain‑error relief
Sentence excessive / denial of probation	Sentences were within statutory ranges; court considered relevant factors (nature of offenses, lack of remorse, risk) and permissibly denied probation given defendant’s statements and risk concerns	Senteney is 68, has minimal prior record, claims innocence and argues probation/rehabilitation sufficient	No abuse of discretion. Sentencing court considered proper factors and reasonably denied probation; consecutive 3–5 year terms affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Price, 306 Neb. 38 (2020) (plain‑error standard; sentencing review)
State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716 (2017) (witnesses may not testify directly to another witness’s credibility)
State v. Beermann, 231 Neb. 380 (1989) (same principle)
State v. Pointer, 224 Neb. 892 (1987) (court not required to rule sua sponte absent objection)
State v. Herrera, 289 Neb. 575 (2014) (similar principle regarding objections and trial strategy)
State v. Cerritos‑Valdez, 295 Neb. 563 (2017) (review of denial of probation)
State v. Davlin, 265 Neb. 386 (2003) (public defender at trial and on appeal does not procedurally bar ineffective‑assistance claim)