State v. Wood, 296 Neb. 738

Robyn J. Wood, a shift manager at Boys Town, was charged with first-degree sexual assault of a protected individual under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.04(3) for a sexual encounter with T.Z., a 17-year-old resident in state custody.
Evidence showed repeated boundary problems: Wood spent private time alone with T.Z., took him off campus, and had prior kissing incidents; staff were warned she should not be alone with him.
T.Z. testified the sexual encounter was mutual and that Wood did not tell him to stop; Wood’s roommate testified Wood described the encounter as consensual when she first heard of it.
In a recorded interview, Wood described resisting initially, then ceasing resistance and participating; she also volunteered that she attended Sexaholics Anonymous.
Jury instructions defined “subject” as “to bring under control or dominion.” The jury convicted Wood; she moved for a new trial (denied) and appealed, arguing insufficient evidence that she “subjected” T.Z. and that admission of her Sexaholics Anonymous attendance was erroneous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to show Wood "subjected" a protected individual to sexual penetration under § 28-322.04	State: Wood’s participation caused T.Z. to undergo sexual penetration; consent by the protected individual is immaterial	Wood: T.Z. was the aggressor who effectuated penetration; she did not exercise control or dominion	Court: "Subject" means "to cause to undergo the action of something specified;" evidence (victim testimony, roommate, Wood’s own interview) supports conviction
Whether denial of new trial was an abuse of discretion	State: conviction supported by evidence; no substantial right affected	Wood: verdict not sustained by the evidence	Court: no abuse; evidence sufficient and defendant not prejudiced
Whether trial court erred in overruling motion in limine excluding Wood’s attendance at Sexaholics Anonymous	State: evidence admissible and was not objected to at trial	Wood: attendance irrelevant and prejudicial	Court: issue not preserved—no contemporaneous objection at trial—so not reviewable on appeal

State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (standard of review for denial of new trial)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (sufficiency-of-evidence standard; appellate deference to factfinder)
State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231 (appellate review reaches independent legal conclusions)
State v. Robbins, 253 Neb. 146 (statutory construction principles)
State v. Loyuk, 289 Neb. 967 ("subject" means "to cause to undergo the action of something specified")
State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55 (harmless error in jury instructions)
State v. McHenry, 250 Neb. 614 (harmless-error standard in criminal jury trials)
State v. Sandoval, 280 Neb. 309 (presumption jury follows instructions)
State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 (standard for a new trial based on prejudice to substantial rights)
State v. Almasaudi, 282 Neb. 162 (motion in limine rulings not preserved without objection at trial)