State v. Thomas
25 Neb. Ct. App. 256
Neb. Ct. App.2017Background
- At ~1:30 a.m. on June 27, 2015, Michael R. Thomas and Yvette Taylor had a loud, alcohol-fueled altercation in front of an apartment building; a young female child (witnesses estimated age 3–6) was nearby and crying.
- Witnesses observed Thomas shove Taylor onto concrete steps; the child was in close proximity and visibly upset.
- Police arrived, Taylor was deemed too intoxicated to care for the child, and the child was placed with a relative for the night.
- Thomas was charged, tried in county court, and convicted of negligent child abuse (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-707) and disturbing the peace (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1322).
- Thomas moved to dismiss the child-abuse charge at trial, arguing the State failed to introduce the child’s name or birth date; the county court ruled identity is not an element and convicted.
- The district court affirmed; Thomas appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which affirmed the convictions and sentences (three months’ imprisonment on each count, consecutive).
Issues
| Issue | Thomas' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victim identity (name/birth date) is an essential element of negligent child abuse under § 28-707 | Thomas: statute requires proof of the child’s identity (name and birth date) to establish the victim is a minor | State: statute requires proof only of the victim’s status as a minor child, not identity | Identity is not an element; proving minor status suffices |
| Sufficiency of evidence for negligent child abuse (§ 28-707) | Thomas: no proof of actual harm, he lacked intent to harm, child was consoling mother | State: statute punishes placing a minor in a situation that endangers health; actual injury and intent are not required for negligent offense | Evidence sufficient: child’s proximity, age, and exposure to violence supported finding her health was endangered |
| Sufficiency of evidence for disturbing the peace (§ 28-1322) | Thomas: no proof he intended to disturb neighbors; disturbance not directed at complaining witnesses | State: statute proscribes intentionally disturbing the peace; intent to disturb others is not required if defendant’s intentional acts result in disturbance | Evidence sufficient: late-night, loud profanity/altercation audible to neighbors supported disturbing the peace conviction |
| Whether sentences (consecutive 3-month terms) were excessive | Thomas: requested probation, argued rehabilitation progress warranted leniency | State: sentences within statutory limits and trial court considered record | No abuse of discretion; sentences within statutory limits and court reasonably denied probation given lengthy criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beitel, 296 Neb. 781, 895 N.W.2d 710 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- State v. Lester, 295 Neb. 878, 898 N.W.2d 299 (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 583 N.W.2d 31 (criminal statutes strictly construed; elements are legislative)
- State v. Schaaf, 234 Neb. 144, 449 N.W.2d 762 (court cannot supply absent statutory language)
- State v. Knutson, 288 Neb. 823, 852 N.W.2d 307 (triers of fact may apply general knowledge)
- State v. Gay, 18 Neb. App. 163, 778 N.W.2d 494 (status-of-victim inquiry; identity not required to prove statutory class)
- State v. Cebuhar, 252 Neb. 796, 567 N.W.2d 129 (focus on victim’s statutory status—peace officer—not identity)
- State v. Broadstone, 233 Neb. 595, 447 N.W.2d 30 (disturbing the peace can be found when acts disturb public tranquility even if not directed at complaining witness)
- The State v. Burns, 35 Kan. 387, 11 P. 161 (historic authority affirming disturbance conviction though not directed at complaining witness)