State v. Senteney, 950 N.W.2d 585

In late 2017, A.B. (then 19) reported that her grandfather, Larry B. Senteney, had sexually abused her multiple times between ages ~13–16 in Nebraska and Wyoming.
Investigators interviewed Senteney at his Wyoming residence on July 25, 2018; the body‑cam recording of that interview was admitted at trial.
Investigator Robert Hackett testified about his observations during the interview and described certain behaviors as "indicators of deception," and on redirect said he felt Senteney was being deceptive. Senteney’s counsel did not object.
The State also presented testimony from A.B. and two other women under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27‑414 as similar‑acts evidence.
The jury convicted Senteney on two counts of third‑degree sexual assault of a child, one count of attempted incest, and one count of attempted first‑degree sexual assault; the court imposed consecutive 3–5 year prison terms for each count.
Senteney appealed, arguing (1) plain error in admitting Hackett’s testimony about deception indicators and (2) that the sentences were excessive (probation should have been imposed).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of investigator testimony that tied observed conduct to "indicators of deception" was plain error	Senteney: testimony improperly opined on his credibility, prejudicial; trial counsel’s failure to object should not foreclose plain‑error review	State: observations about behavior admissible; any opinion went too far but was harmless; jury instructed on credibility; other evidence supported conviction	No plain error. Testimony not a miscarriage of justice; lack of objection and context weigh against reversal.
Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing prison rather than probation	Senteney: probation appropriate given age (68), minimal record, rehabilitative needs, and asserted innocence	State: court considered statutory factors, lack of remorse, risk to others, and Senteney’s rejection of ordinary probation conditions; sentences within statutory limits	No abuse of discretion. Sentences (3–5 years each, consecutive) were within statutory limits and reasonably supported by sentencing rationale.

State v. Price, 306 Neb. 38, 944 N.W.2d 279 (2020) (plain‑error standard and review of sentences within statutory limits)
State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (2017) (general rule that one witness should not testify to another witness’s credibility)
State v. Beermann, 231 Neb. 380, 436 N.W.2d 499 (1989) (same rule regarding witness credibility testimony)
State v. Pointer, 224 Neb. 892, 402 N.W.2d 268 (1987) (trial court not required to interpose sua sponte when no objection is made)
State v. Cerritos‑Valdez, 295 Neb. 563, 889 N.W.2d 605 (2017) (denial of probation is within trial court’s discretion)
State v. Davlin, 265 Neb. 386, 658 N.W.2d 1 (2003) (when public defender represented defendant at trial and on appeal, ineffective‑assistance claims are not procedurally barred on postconviction review)