State v. Williams, 306 Neb. 261

Background

K.M., a 16‑year‑old with leukodystrophy, was medically nonverbal, immobile, diapered, and G‑tube fed and entirely dependent on caregivers.
Barbara J. Williams, an LPN employed by an in‑home agency, provided care and allegedly showered K.M. on July 18, 2014.
K.M. was admitted to a burn unit the same day with scald‑type burns to the perineal area, inner thighs, and buttocks; she required skin graft surgery and 19 days of hospitalization.
A treating plastic surgeon testified the injuries were consistent with a scald from bathtub water (household water measured ~143.6°F when run), and scars were permanent; K.M.’s mother described functional effects (sensitive grafted skin, need for special seating, clothing limitations).
Evidence included Williams’ nursing chart (documenting showering and topical treatments), family testimony (behavioral changes, soiled pads found, Williams asking father to sign paperwork), and a photograph of K.M.’s scar admitted after the State recalled K.M.’s mother.
Williams was convicted after a bench trial of negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and sentenced to 2–3 years’ imprisonment; she appealed challenging witness recall, motions to dismiss/sufficiency, and sentence excessiveness.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by allowing the State to recall K.M.’s mother	State: recall was proper to fill gaps after expert testimony left ambiguity about whether disfigurement was “serious”	Williams: recall improperly introduced new testimony and an exhibit after the State had effectively presented its case	Court: no abuse of discretion; recall occurred before resting, was not prompted by the court, and Williams could cross‑examine
Whether the court erred in denying Williams’ motion to dismiss for failure to prove “serious bodily injury”	State: mother’s testimony and scar photo, plus surgeon’s testimony about permanent scarring, suffice to prove serious permanent disfigurement	Williams: lack of evidence about scar appearance and effect when the State rested; expert did not use word “serious”	Court: expert plus mother’s testimony and photo provided sufficient proof that disfigurement was serious; motion properly overruled
Sufficiency of evidence for negligent child abuse (criminal negligence and causation)	State: training evidence, routine requiring testing water, testimony that caregiver should test water for nonverbal child, evidence Williams showered K.M. and attempted to conceal injuries support negligence and causation	Williams: she acted appropriately, documented cares, did not appreciate injury extent, and evidence is inconclusive	Court: viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, a rational trier of fact could find criminal negligence and injury causation beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether the sentence (2–3 years) was excessive	State: sentence within statutory range and justified by factors including violence and defendant’s record	Williams: strong family ties, employment, and lack of serious recent charges favor probation	Court: sentence within statutory limits; court considered required factors and did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

Kreus v. Stiles Service Ctr., 250 Neb. 526 (Neb. 1996) (motion to dismiss in bench trial treated like directed verdict)
State v. Bol, 288 Neb. 144 (Neb. 2014) (trial court discretion to recall witnesses; limits on court‑initiated recalls)
State v. Johnson, 298 Neb. 491 (Neb. 2017) (standards for directing a verdict / overruling motions to dismiss)
State v. Thomas, 210 Neb. 298 (Neb. 1981) (victim testimony about injuries may be considered without expert proof when injuries are objectively provable)
State v. Costanzo, 227 Neb. 616 (Neb. 1988) (expert testimony unnecessary where conclusions from proved facts do not require special technical knowledge)
State v. Ferguson, 301 Neb. 697 (Neb. 2018) (sufficiency‑of‑evidence standard in criminal appeals)
State v. Thelen, 305 Neb. 334 (Neb. 2020) (appellate review of sentencing for abuse of discretion and relevant sentencing factors)