State v. Swindle, 915 N.W.2d 795

Background

Anthony L. Swindle was convicted by a jury of two counts of first‑degree sexual assault of a child, one count of sex trafficking of a victim under 16, and one count of sex trafficking by inflicting or threatening serious personal injury; the district court sentenced him to consecutive terms totaling 180 years to life and he appealed.
Victim M.M. was a 15‑year‑old runaway with serious mental health impairments; Swindle picked her up, raped her in his car, had her advertised online, and later assaulted her again in a hotel room.
Two adult victims (Villanova‑White and A.R.) testified that Swindle ran an online prostitution operation (Backpage), controlled money, limited movement, used threats/violence, and kept a handgun.
Swindle sought (a) a jury instruction requiring knowledge of victim’s age as an element of sex trafficking of a minor, (b) permission to cross‑examine M.M. about prior false rape claims, (c) exclusion of certain paraphrased statements attributed to him, and (d) a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct; he also challenged sentence severity.
The district court refused Swindle’s proposed age‑knowledge instruction, limited cross‑examination under Nebraska’s rape‑shield rule, admitted testimony recounting Swindle’s statements as party admissions, denied mistrial, and imposed habitual‑criminal enhanced consecutive sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury should have been instructed that knowledge of the victim’s age is an element of sex trafficking of a minor	State: statutory language defining the offense controls; instruction need not add age‑knowledge	Swindle: "knowingly" in statute requires proof defendant knew victim was a minor (or should have known)	Court: Affirmed trial court; "knowingly" modifies the trafficking conduct, not knowledge of age; mistake as to age not a defense for child sex offenses
Whether Swindle could cross‑examine M.M. about prior false rape allegations (rape‑shield & Confrontation Clause)	Swindle: prior false allegations bear on M.M.’s credibility; exclusion violated confrontation rights	State: §27‑412 bars sexual‑history evidence; prior reports either involved sexual behavior or were not shown false; probative value low	Court: No error; trial court properly applied rape‑shield exceptions, Swindle failed to prove falsity by preponderance, and exclusion did not violate confrontation rights
Admissibility of witnesses paraphrasing statements by Swindle	Swindle: out‑of‑court paraphrases were hearsay and inadmissible without exact phrasing	State: testimony was party admissions or lay testimony of conversations; objections at trial were not specific	Court: No reversible error; many objections waived for lack of specificity; party‑opponent rule and foundation satisfied
Whether a mistrial was required for alleged prosecutorial misconduct (incorrect opening statements)	Swindle: State previewed testimony (ejaculation, gun) not borne out at trial and thus misled jury	State: previewed matters were supported by investigation/testimony or were not material to elements; jury instructed that statements are not evidence	Court: No abuse of discretion in denying mistrial; discrepancies not prejudicial and jury was instructed to disregard counsel arguments

Key Cases Cited

State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932 (discussing review of jury instructions)
State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 (standard for prejudicial jury instruction error)
State v. Hill, 298 Neb. 675 (mistrial and prosecutorial‑misconduct standards)
State v. Armagost, 293 Neb. 359 (use of statutory language in jury instructions)
State v. Erpelding, 292 Neb. 351 (instruction language and statutory fidelity)
State v. Heitman, 262 Neb. 185 (mistake as to victim’s age not a defense in child sexual‑assault context)
U.S. v. Jones, 471 F.3d 535 (federal precedent rejecting age‑knowledge element in Mann Act/trafficking analogies)
State v. Lavalleur, 289 Neb. 102 (rape‑shield statute purpose and scope)