State v. Thomas
25 Neb. Ct. App. 256
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At ~1:30 a.m., Michael R. Thomas loudly argued with Yvette Taylor outside an apartment; witnesses observed a young female child (estimated 3–6 years old) between or very near the adults while Thomas shoved Taylor onto concrete steps.
- Neighbors and a guest heard screaming and profanity; the child was crying and attempting to console her mother.
- Police arrived, Thomas fled into the building and was later cited; Taylor was too intoxicated to care for the child, who was placed with a relative for the night.
- Thomas was charged with negligent child abuse (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-707) and disturbing the peace (§ 28-1322); county court convicted after a bench trial and sentenced him to 3 months on each count, to run consecutively.
- On appeal, Thomas argued (1) § 28-707 requires proof of the child victim’s identity (name and birth date) as an element; (2) the evidence was insufficient for both convictions; and (3) the sentences were excessive.
- The district court affirmed; the Nebraska Court of Appeals again affirmed, rejecting Thomas’s statutory-interpretation and sufficiency claims and finding no abuse of sentencing discretion.
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 only proof that victim was a "minor child" (status), not name/birth date | § 28-707 implicitly requires proof of identity (name and DOB) to establish minor status | Held: Identity is not an element; statute requires proof only of victim’s status as a minor child. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for negligent child abuse | Witnesses placed a young child near a violent altercation; a rational trier could find the child’s physical or mental health was endangered | No actual harm shown; Thomas lacked intent to harm the child; child was consoling her mother | Held: Evidence sufficient — endangerment can be shown without actual injury; negligence, not intent, is the relevant mens rea. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for disturbing the peace (§ 28-1322) | Thomas’s loud, profane, violent conduct in a quiet neighborhood at 1:30 a.m. disturbed neighbors and bystanders | No evidence Thomas intended to disturb others in the neighborhood | Held: Intent to disturb others is not required; intentional acts that result in disturbing the peace suffice; evidence was sufficient. |
| Whether sentences were excessive | Sentences within statutory limits and court considered defendant’s criminal history and circumstances | Court failed to adequately weigh rehabilitation efforts and suitability for probation | Held: No abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably denied probation given extensive prior convictions and violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beitel, 296 Neb. 781 (Neb. 2017) (statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo)
- State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190 (Neb. 1998) (penal statutes must be strictly construed; courts cannot add elements)
- State v. Gay, 18 Neb. App. 163 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009) (focus is on victim’s status under statute, not identity proof by name)
- State v. Cebuhar, 252 Neb. 796 (Neb. 1997) (issue concerned victim’s statutory status—peace officer—not identity)
- State v. Broadstone, 233 Neb. 595 (Neb. 1989) (disturbing the peace includes acts that disturb public tranquility even if offensive acts not directed at complaining witness)