State v. Torres Aquino, 19 N.W.3d 222

Nimrod Torres Aquino was convicted of first and third degree sexual assault of his stepdaughter, T.G.T., in Hall County, Nebraska.
The key dispute involved whether the defense’s late attempt to call Dr. Partida and introduce her medical records (showing an alleged prior inconsistent statement by the victim about the timing of the assault) violated a reciprocal discovery order and privilege procedures.
The district court barred the defense from using this evidence as a sanction for a discovery violation, finding failure to timely disclose Partida or the records.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Aquino failed to preserve his evidentiary objection for appeal because he did not renew his offer of proof at trial.
On further review to the Nebraska Supreme Court, Aquino argued (1) there was no discovery violation, (2) barring the evidence was unduly prejudicial, and (3) his counsel was ineffective for failing to properly handle this evidence.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding any error in exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as other, similar impeachment evidence had reached the jury and there was no prejudice to Aquino.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Discovery Violation – Evidence Bar	Aquino: No violation; records/witness not subject to order and only for impeachment	State: Failure to disclose Partida/records as required by discovery and privilege rules	Court found any exclusion error was harmless due to cumulative, similar evidence at trial
Need to Renew Offer of Proof at Trial	Aquino: Pretrial offer of proof sufficient to preserve error	State: Offer must be renewed at trial as in in limine rulings	Court: Preservation requirements for discovery sanctions differ; issue was properly preserved
Harmfulness of Exclusion Sanction	Aquino: Barred critical impeachment evidence, harming defense	State: Any error harmless because evidence was cumulative	Court: Exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; similar inconsistencies explored
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel	Aquino: Counsel failed to make required disclosures or follow procedure	State: No prejudice from any deficiency	Court: No prejudice because exclusion was harmless; ineffective assistance claim fails

State v. Sierra, 305 Neb. 249 (2020) (addresses appropriate sanctions for discovery violations)
State v. Schreiner, 276 Neb. 393 (2008) (explains when offer of proof is needed to preserve error regarding excluded evidence)
State v. Samayoa, 292 Neb. 334 (2015) (clarifies that exact date is not a substantive element in child sexual assault cases)
State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363 (2013) (explains harmless error review for evidentiary errors)