State v. Thomas
25 Neb. Ct. App. 256
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At ~1:30 a.m., Michael R. Thomas and Yvette Taylor had a loud, alcohol-fueled altercation outside an apartment; a young female child (witness estimates 3–6 years) was near them and crying.
- Witnesses saw Thomas shove Taylor onto concrete steps; the child was in close proximity during the shove.
- Police responded; Taylor was too intoxicated to care for the child, who was placed with the grandmother for the night.
- Thomas was charged and convicted in county court of negligent child abuse (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑707) and disturbing the peace (§ 28‑1322); county court sentenced him to consecutive jail terms (3 months each).
- District court affirmed; Thomas appealed to Nebraska Court of Appeals challenging elements proof, sufficiency of evidence, and sentence excessiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thomas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether victim identity (name/birth date) is an element of negligent child abuse under § 28‑707 | Statute requires proof only that the victim is a "minor child," not specific identity | The State had to prove the child’s identity (name and birth date) to establish minor status; absence of that proof undermines conviction | The statute requires proof of the victim’s status as a minor only; identity/birth date not an essential element |
| Sufficiency of evidence for negligent child abuse (§ 28‑707) | Evidence showed a drunk, aggressive shove in proximity to a young child, endangering her physical/mental health | No showing of actual injury, no intent to harm the child; child was consoling mother | Evidence sufficient: proximity, child’s age/cries, and nature of the shove could endanger child’s health; intent not required for negligent offense |
| Sufficiency of evidence for disturbing the peace (§ 28‑1322) | Thomas’s loud, profane, aggressive conduct at 1:30 a.m. in a quiet neighborhood disturbed others | No evidence Thomas intended to disturb neighbors specifically; conduct not directed at complaining witnesses | Intent to disturb others is not required; intentional acts that result in disturbance suffice — evidence adequate |
| Excessiveness of sentence | Sentences within statutory limits; court considered criminal history and other factors | Court failed to adequately weigh rehabilitation efforts and suitability for probation | No abuse of discretion: trial court permissibly denied probation given extensive criminal history and recent similar offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beitel, 296 Neb. 781 (statutory interpretation is a question of law)
- State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190 (penal statutes strictly construed; courts may not supply omitted elements)
- State v. Knutson, 288 Neb. 823 (factfinders may apply general knowledge about children)
- State v. Broadstone, 233 Neb. 595 (disturbing the peace includes acts disturbing public tranquility even if not directed at complaining witness)
- State v. Gay, 18 Neb. App. 163 (statute-protected status—"intimate partner"—focuses on status, not identity)
- State v. Cebuhar, 252 Neb. 796 (issue was victim’s status as peace officer, not identity)
- State v. Carpenter, 293 Neb. 860 (appellate review of within-guidelines sentences for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Chacon, 296 Neb. 203 (factors sentencing court should consider)