State v. Wood, 296 Neb. 738

Background

Robyn J. Wood, a Boys Town shift manager, 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.
Evidence included T.Z.’s testimony describing consensual kissing and a sexual encounter in an unoccupied campus house, Wood’s recorded interview admitting the intercourse but stating she tried to push him off and later stopped resisting, and testimony from a coworker who said Wood described the encounter as her "first time."
Wood moved in limine to exclude evidence of attendance at Sexaholics Anonymous; the court overruled (no written ruling in record) and Wood did not object when the evidence was admitted at trial.
Jury instructions defined “subject” as “to bring under control or dominion.” The jury convicted Wood; she moved for a new trial arguing insufficiency of evidence because T.Z. was the aggressor and effectuated penetration. The district court denied the motion.
On appeal Wood challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence/new trial denial, (2) that she did not “subject” T.Z. to penetration, and (3) the admission of her Sexaholics Anonymous attendance. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wood)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction and whether denial of new trial was an abuse of discretion	Evidence (T.Z., coworker, and Wood’s own statement) showed Wood caused T.Z. to undergo penetration; jury could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt	T.Z. was the aggressor and effectuated penetration; Wood did not exercise control or dominion and therefore did not “subject” him	Affirmed. Viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, a rational juror could find elements beyond reasonable doubt; new trial denial not an abuse of discretion
Meaning of “subject” in § 28‑322.04 (did defendant have to exert control/dominion?)	“Subject” means to cause to undergo the action specified; participation that causes the sexual act suffices even if the victim also participated	“Subject” should require bringing victim under control/dominion or forcing to undergo act; otherwise statute overbroad	Court adopted Loyuk construction: “subject” = “to cause to undergo the action of something specified,” so Wood could be guilty by participating and causing the act
Prejudicial instructional error (jury given narrower definition of “subject”)	Instruction error harmless because jury still convicted under narrower definition and record supports guilt	Instruction misstates statutory meaning and could prejudice verdict	Harmless error: although instruction was narrower than court’s precedent, the record shows no material influence on verdict
Admissibility of Wood’s attendance at Sexaholics Anonymous (motion in limine)	Admission was proper / or at least not preserved for appeal due to lack of contemporaneous objection	Motion in limine should have excluded it; admission was prejudicial	Issue not preserved: overruling motion in limine is not a final ruling and Wood made no objection at trial, so appellate review barred

Key Cases Cited

State v. Loyuk, 289 Neb. 967 (Neb. 2015) (defines “subject” as “to cause to undergo the action of something specified” in similar statutory context)
State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (Neb. 2015) (standard of review for denial of a motion for new trial)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (Neb. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence favorably to prosecution)
State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231 (Neb. 2016) (appellate courts independently decide questions of law/statutory interpretation)
State v. Robbins, 253 Neb. 146 (Neb. 1997) (rules of penal statutory construction: ascertain legislative intent from statutory language)
State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55 (Neb. 2012) (harmless error analysis for instructional errors)
State v. McHenry, 250 Neb. 614 (Neb. 1996) (harmless error standard in criminal jury trials)
State v. Sandoval, 280 Neb. 309 (Neb. 2010) (presumption that jury followed instructions)
State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 (Neb. 2005) (standard for granting a new trial requires showing prejudice to a substantial right)
State v. Almasaudi, 282 Neb. 162 (Neb. 2011) (motion in limine rulings are not final; contemporaneous objection required to preserve admissibility issues)