State v. Wood, 296 Neb. 738

Background

Robyn J. Wood, a Boys Town shift manager, 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.
T.Z. testified the encounter was mutual and that Wood did not tell him to stop; Wood told police she tried to push him off, told him to stop, but then ‘‘stopped fighting’’ and participated.
Other staff testified Wood had poor boundaries with T.Z., spent time alone with him, and took him on unauthorized outings; a coworker reported Wood later told her about the sexual encounter.
Wood admitted at her interview that she attends Sexaholics Anonymous; that statement was played for the jury without objection.
Jury instructions defined “subject” as “to bring under control or dominion.” The jury convicted Wood; she moved for a new trial arguing insufficient evidence she “subjected” T.Z. to penetration and challenged admission of her Sexaholics Anonymous evidence. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Wood to probation.
On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered statutory interpretation of “subject” and whether the evidence supported the conviction and whether the Sexaholics evidence was preserved for review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wood)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient that Wood “subjected” a protected individual to sexual penetration under § 28‑322.04	The State: Wood caused T.Z. to undergo penetration by participating in the sexual act; consent and who effectuated penetration are immaterial.	Wood: T.Z. was the aggressor who effectuated penetration; she did not exercise control or dominion, so she did not “subject” him.	Held: "Subject" means "to cause to undergo the action of something specified"; evidence—T.Z.’s and Wood’s statements and coworker testimony—was sufficient to convict.
Whether the jury instruction defining "subject" as "bring under control or dominion" was reversible error	The State: conviction stands on record evidence despite instruction wording.	Wood: instruction was incorrect and required control/dominion, narrowing statute.	Held: Instruction erred compared to Loyuk definition but was harmless; jury still convicted under narrower instruction.
Whether the district court abused discretion in denying motion for new trial based on insufficiency	The State: no abuse; evidence supported verdict.	Wood: verdict contrary to law and unsupported by evidence.	Held: No abuse; substantial rights not violated; no prejudice.
Whether admission of Wood’s Sexaholics Anonymous attendance was error	The State: evidence was admitted and used at trial.	Wood: district court erred in overruling motion in limine and admitting this evidence.	Held: Issue not preserved—Wood did not object at trial when evidence was presented—so appellate review denied.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Loyuk, 289 Neb. 967 (2015) (defines “subject” as “to cause to undergo the action of something specified” in analogous statute)
State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (2015) (standard of review for denial of motion for new trial)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (2015) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231 (2016) (appellate court independently construes statutes)
State v. Robbins, 253 Neb. 146 (1997) (statutory construction principles)
State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55 (2012) (harmless error applies to instructional errors)
State v. McHenry, 250 Neb. 614 (1996) (harmless error standard in criminal jury trials)
State v. Sandoval, 280 Neb. 309 (2010) (presumption that jury follows instructions)
State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 (2005) (standard for granting a new trial—substantial right affected and prejudice)
State v. Almasaudi, 282 Neb. 162 (2011) (ruling on motions in limine preserved only by contemporaneous objection)