State v. Wood, 296 Neb. 738

Robyn J. Wood, a shift manager at Boys Town (a state contractor), was charged with first-degree sexual assault of a protected individual under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.04(3) for a June 2014 sexual encounter with T.Z., a 17‑year‑old resident in state custody.
Evidence showed Wood had an ongoing preferential relationship and poor boundaries with T.Z.; staff warned her not to be alone with him.
T.Z. testified the sexual encounter was mutual and that Wood never asked him to stop except once when she got a text; he said he stopped when she asked.
Wood told investigators she initially pushed T.Z. off, told him to stop, tried to resist, then ceased resisting and felt she had become a “willing participant” though she later said she did not consent.
The jury was instructed that to “subject” means to “bring under control or dominion” (no objection); Wood was convicted. She moved for a new trial claiming insufficient evidence that she “subjected” T.Z. to penetration and challenged admission of her Sexaholics Anonymous attendance. The district court denied the motion; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Wood “subjected” a protected individual to sexual penetration under § 28-322.04	State: viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, Wood participated in and thus caused T.Z. to undergo sexual penetration	Wood: T.Z. was the aggressor and effectuated penetration; she did not exercise control or dominion and thus did not “subject” him	Court held “subject” means “to cause to undergo the action of something specified”; evidence that Wood willingly participated supported conviction
Whether jury instruction defining “subject” as “bring under control or dominion” was correct	State: instruction was acceptable	Wood: instruction was erroneous and narrowed the statute meaning	Instruction was legally incorrect per precedent but harmless because jury convicted under that narrower definition and no prejudice shown
Whether district court abused discretion by denying new trial for insufficiency of evidence	State: no abuse; evidence supported verdict	Wood: same insufficiency argument as on appeal	Denial affirmed; no substantial right prejudiced
Whether admission of evidence that Wood attended Sexaholics Anonymous was preserved and erroneous	State: evidence admitted at trial	Wood: pretrial motion in limine sought exclusion; attendance was prejudicial	Issue not preserved—no contemporaneous trial objection—so appellate review denied

State v. Loyuk, 289 Neb. 967 (Neb. 2015) ("subject" means "to cause to undergo the action of something specified")
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (Neb. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
State v. Sandoval, 280 Neb. 309 (Neb. 2010) (presumption that jury follows instructions)
State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55 (Neb. 2012) (harmless error analysis for jury instructions)
State v. Almasaudi, 282 Neb. 162 (Neb. 2011) (motion in limine rulings are not final; contemporaneous objection required to preserve admissibility issues)