State v. Wood
296 Neb. 738
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Robyn J. Wood, a Boys Town shift manager, was charged and 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 mutual kissing and sexual intercourse in an unoccupied campus house, Wood’s recorded interview admitting intercourse, and testimony from a roommate who said Wood described the encounter as consensual.
- Wood’s interview also stated she initially resisted, then stopped fighting because she feared becoming a “statistic,” and that she attended Sexaholics Anonymous; the recorded interview was admitted without objection.
- Wood moved in limine to exclude evidence of her Sexaholics Anonymous attendance; the motion was overruled (no formal ruling in the record) and she did not object at trial when the evidence was presented.
- The jury was instructed that to "subject" a protected individual means "to bring under control or dominion." Wood challenged sufficiency of the evidence, the instruction, denial of her motion in limine, and moved for a new trial; the district court denied the new trial motion.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the statute’s use of "subject" means "to cause to undergo the action of something specified," and that the evidence supported conviction; instructional error (use of a narrower definition) was harmless and the Sexaholics evidence issue was not preserved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wood) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to show Wood "subjected" T.Z. to sexual penetration | Evidence (Wood’s interview, T.Z., and roommate) shows Wood participated and thus caused T.Z. to undergo penetration | T.Z. was the aggressor; Wood did not exercise control or dominion and did not "subject" him | Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find Wood caused T.Z. to undergo penetration; conviction supported |
| Meaning of statutory term "subject" in § 28-322.04 | "Subject" means to cause to undergo the specified action; participation suffices even if victim effectuated penetration | "Subject" should mean "bring under control or dominion" (require exercise of control/force) | Affirmed: adopts Loyuk definition — "to cause to undergo the action of something specified"; consent or who effectuated act immaterial |
| Jury instruction defining "subject" as "bring under control or dominion" | Instruction acceptable; jury still found guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Instruction was erroneous because it adopted a narrower definition than precedent | Harmless error: jury convicted under narrower instruction but record supports essential elements, so no reversal |
| Admission of Wood’s Sexaholics Anonymous evidence (motion in limine) | Evidence admissible and was introduced without objection at trial | Motion in limine should have excluded it as improper propensity evidence | Not reviewed on appeal: issue not preserved because Wood failed to object at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Loyuk, 289 Neb. 967 (construing “subject” to mean “to cause to undergo the action of something specified”)
- State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (standard of review for denial of motion for new trial)
- State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (sufficiency-of-evidence standard: view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55 (harmless error analysis for instructional errors)