State v. Thomas
25 Neb. Ct. App. 256
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At ~1:30 a.m., Michael R. Thomas argued loudly and appeared intoxicated with Yvette Taylor outside an apartment; a young female child was nearby and crying.
- Thomas shoved Taylor onto concrete steps during the altercation; witnesses placed the child within a few feet (age estimated 3–6 years) and heard the child crying through a closed apartment door.
- Police arrived; Taylor was too intoxicated to care for the child, who was placed with a relative for the night; Thomas was cited at the scene.
- Thomas was charged and convicted in county court of negligent child abuse (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-707) and disturbing the peace (§ 28-1322); convictions and consecutive 3‑month jail sentences were affirmed by the district court.
- On appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, Thomas argued (1) the child‑abuse statute requires proof of the victim’s identity (name and birth date), (2) the evidence was insufficient for both convictions, and (3) the sentences were excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 28-707 requires proof of the victim’s identity (name/birth date) | Statute requires proof only that the victim was a minor child (status), not identity | Statute implicitly requires name and birth date to prove minor status; absence is fatal | Court: Identity is not an essential element; proof of minor status suffices |
| Sufficiency for negligent child abuse under § 28-707 | Evidence showed child was near violent altercation and her physical/mental health was endangered | No proof of actual injury; defendant lacked intent; child consoling mother undermines danger | Court: Evidence sufficient; harm need not be actual injury; negligence standard met |
| Sufficiency for disturbing the peace under § 28-1322 | Defendant’s loud, profane, aggressive behavior late at night disturbed neighborhood tranquility | No evidence defendant intended to disturb others specifically | Court: Intent to disturb others not required; intentional acts that disturb public peace suffice; evidence sufficient |
| Whether sentences (two consecutive 3‑month terms) were excessive | Sentences within statutory limits and appropriate given criminal history | Argues court failed to adequately weigh rehabilitation and fit for probation | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably denied probation given lengthy violent record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beitel, 296 Neb. 781, 895 N.W.2d 710 (2017) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 583 N.W.2d 31 (1998) (penal statutes strictly construed; courts may not add elements)
- State v. Gay, 18 Neb. App. 163, 778 N.W.2d 494 (2009) (status of victim — e.g., intimate partner — is the relevant inquiry, not identity)
- State v. Cebuhar, 252 Neb. 796, 567 N.W.2d 129 (1997) (focus on victim’s status as peace officer rather than identity)
- State v. Knutson, 288 Neb. 823, 852 N.W.2d 307 (2014) (factfinder may apply general knowledge about children when assessing danger)
- State v. Broadstone, 233 Neb. 595, 447 N.W.2d 30 (1989) (disturbing the peace may be proven even if offensive conduct was not directed at complaining witness)