State v. Thelen, 940 N.W.2d 259

The State charged John E. Thelen with three counts of obstructing a public road under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-301 for repeatedly erecting an electric fence in the county ditch/right-of-way adjacent to his property in Cedar County.
Cedar County had adopted a 66-foot right-of-way (33 feet each side of centerline); the disputed fence sat in the ditch portion of that right-of-way about 16–31 feet from the centerline.
County officials and the highway superintendent averred Thelen repeatedly placed and refused to remove the fence after notice; he twice requested permission to place it and was denied.
Law enforcement seized fencing materials on Aug. 31, Sept. 4, and Sept. 13, 2016; county records show about $401 in removal labor costs.
The county court convicted Thelen of three misdemeanors in 2017; the district court affirmed on appeal. Thelen appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, challenging (1) whether a ditch/right-of-way is a "public road" under § 39-301 and (2) sufficiency of evidence that he erected the fences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a county ditch/right-of-way adjoining a roadway is a "public road" under § 39-301	The State: "public road" encompasses the entire area within the county right-of-way, so ditches are part of the public road and protected by § 39-301	Thelen: ditch/right-of-way is not part of the "public road" as used in § 39-301, so erecting a fence in the ditch is not criminal	Held: "Public road" includes the entire area within the county right-of-way; the ditch was within the public road for § 39-301 purposes
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Thelen erected/left the fences in the right-of-way	The State: affidavits, repeated denials of permission, prior conviction, citizen complaints, officers’ observations, seizures, and Thelen's conduct permit reasonable inference that he placed/left the fences	Thelen: no direct eyewitness or clear admission; insufficient direct proof he erected the fences	Held: Evidence (largely circumstantial) was sufficient; verdicts affirmed

State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500, 805 N.W.2d 290 (Neb. 2011) (standard of review for county-court criminal appeals to district court)
State v. McCurdy, 301 Neb. 343, 918 N.W.2d 292 (Neb. 2018) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard in criminal appeals)
State v. Stanko, 304 Neb. 675, 936 N.W.2d 353 (Neb. 2019) (penal statutes construed sensibly in light of remedial purpose)
Saylor v. State, 304 Neb. 779, 936 N.W.2d 924 (Neb. 2020) (appellate courts independently review statutory interpretation)
Fisher v. PayFlex Systems USA, 285 Neb. 808, 829 N.W.2d 703 (Neb. 2013) (statutory interpretation principles: whole statute and legislative intent)
Pittman v. Western Engineering Co., 283 Neb. 913, 813 N.W.2d 487 (Neb. 2012) (in pari materia construction of related statutory provisions)
State v. Pierce, 248 Neb. 536, 537 N.W.2d 323 (Neb. 1995) (circumstantial evidence can establish criminal culpability)