State v. Wood, 296 Neb. 738

Background

Robyn J. Wood, a shift manager at Boys Town, was convicted by a jury of first‑degree sexual assault of a protected individual under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28‑322.04(3) for sexual intercourse with T.Z., a 17‑year‑old resident in state custody.
Facts: staff observed Wood giving preferential treatment and having poor boundaries with T.Z.; they were often alone together and engaged in private walks and off‑campus activity.
Incident: Wood and T.Z. went to an unoccupied campus house; both gave varying accounts—Wood’s police interview described initial resistance then cessation of resistance after about 30 minutes; T.Z. testified the sex was mutual and Wood never told him to stop except once when she received a text.
Procedural: Wood moved in limine to exclude evidence of attendance at Sexaholics Anonymous (overruled); she was convicted, moved for a new trial arguing insufficiency of evidence (denied), and appealed.
Central legal dispute: whether the evidence established that Wood “subjected” T.Z. to sexual penetration under § 28‑322.04 when T.Z. played an active role in the penetration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wood)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to show Wood "subjected" a protected individual to sexual penetration under § 28‑322.04	Evidence (T.Z., Hutchinson, and Wood’s interview) shows Wood caused/participated in the sexual act; consent and who effectuated penetration are immaterial under the statute	Wood argued T.Z. was the aggressor who effectuated penetration, so she did not "subject" him (no exercise of control/dominion)	Court affirmed: "subject" means "to cause to undergo the action of something specified;" evidence sufficed to convict
Whether the jury instruction defining "subject" as "bring under control or dominion" was erroneous and prejudicial	Instruction narrower than the court’s later construction but did not prejudice Wood because jury still found essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt	Instruction misdefined "subject," which Wood argued required control/dominion	Harmless error: instruction was incorrect under Loyuk but did not materially influence verdict
Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion for new trial based on insufficiency of the evidence	New trial not warranted because substantial rights were not violated and evidence supported conviction	Motion for new trial should have been granted because evidence did not prove Wood "subjected" T.Z.	Denied: no abuse of discretion; evidence supported conviction
Whether admission of Wood’s attendance at Sexaholics Anonymous should have been excluded via motion in limine	State introduced the evidence; it was admissible or at least not preserved for appeal	Wood sought to exclude under Neb. evidence rules; argued prejudice	Issue not preserved: no contemporaneous objection at trial, so appellate review barred

Key Cases Cited

State v. Loyuk, 289 Neb. 967 (interpreting "subject" in § 28‑322.01 as "to cause to undergo the action of something specified")
State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (standard of review for motion for new trial)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (sufficiency of the evidence standard)
State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231 (appellate court reaches independent conclusion on questions of law)
State v. Robbins, 253 Neb. 146 (statutory construction principles)
State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55 (harmless error applied to instructional errors)
State v. McHenry, 250 Neb. 614 (definition of harmless error in criminal jury trials)
State v. Sandoval, 280 Neb. 309 (presumption that jury follows instructions)
State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 (standard for granting new trial requires prejudice to substantial right)
State v. Almasaudi, 282 Neb. 162 (motion in limine rulings are not final; contemporaneous objections required to preserve evidentiary issues)