State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734

Background

Defendant Anthony L. Swindle was the pimp of two women (A.R. and M.M.) and used online ads to traffic them; M.M. was 15 when taken from a missing-person match and Swindle was arrested.
Victims testified Swindle controlled finances, restricted movement, threatened violence, and forced sex; one victim (M.M.) had mental-health diagnoses and admitted lying about her age when she ran away.
Swindle was convicted by a jury of: two counts of first-degree sexual assault of a child, sex trafficking of a victim under 16, and sex trafficking by inflicting or threatening serious injury.
The district court adjudicated Swindle a habitual criminal and imposed consecutive sentences totaling 180 years to life; Swindle appealed raising multiple evidentiary, instruction, mistrial, and sentencing claims.
Pertinent pretrial rulings: court limited cross-examination under Nebraska’s rape-shield statute but allowed some questioning about lies on age; court denied a proposed jury instruction that would have required the State to prove Swindle knew the victim’s age.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Swindle)	Held
Jury instruction on knowledge of victim’s age for sex trafficking of a minor	"Knowingly" in statute modifies the trafficking conduct only; age need not be proven as mens rea	Knowledge of victim’s age is an essential element; jury should be instructed that defendant knew or should have known victim was under 16	Court: Affirmed — statutory language and precedent do not require proof that defendant knew victim’s age; proposed instruction was incorrect.
Cross-examination re: prior false rape allegations by M.M. (rape-shield & confrontation)	Exclusion appropriate under §27-412; evidence of prior false accusations was not shown false and was prejudicial	Needed to impeach M.M.’s credibility; pretrial order suggested some questioning permitted; exclusion violated confrontation rights	Court: No error — defendant failed to prove prior accusations were false; limited questioning was allowed; exclusion did not violate confrontation clause.
Prosecutorial misconduct / motion for mistrial (opening statement inaccuracies re: gun and ejaculation)	Opening preview was supported by investigation and not repeated; any variance was not prejudicial	Opening promised testimony the State knew was false — prejudicial and warranted mistrial	Court: No misconduct warranting mistrial; variances were not crucial, jury instructed lawyers’ statements are not evidence.
Admission of defendant’s statements via witness testimony (hearsay/foundation)	Statements were admissible as party admissions and witness had personal knowledge	Testimony improperly paraphrased and lacked foundation; should be excluded	Court: No reversible error — objections not preserved or lacked specificity; testimony admissible as out-of-court admissions by a party.
Sentence length / excessiveness	Sentences within statutory limits and justified by conduct and habitual-offender status	180 years-to-life disproportionate given defendant’s prior record	Court: No abuse of discretion — within statutory limits and supported by facts.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932 (instruction-error standard) (appellate review of jury instructions is de novo)
State v. Castillo-Zamora, 289 Neb. 382 (trial-court mistrial discretion) (trial court has broad discretion on mistrial motions)
State v. Hill, 298 Neb. 675 (prosecutorial misconduct/misc.) (not every variance between preview and proof is reversible error)
State v. Heitman, 262 Neb. 185 (age and consent in child-sex-offense context) (reasonable mistake as to victim’s age is not a defense)