State v. Wood, 296 Neb. 738

Background

Robyn J. Wood, a shift manager at Boys Town (a contractor for Nebraska DHHS), was charged with 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.
The State alleged Wood "subjected" T.Z. to sexual penetration; neither party disputed status elements or that penetration occurred.
Evidence included staff testimony about Wood s poor boundaries and preferential treatment of T.Z., T.Z. s trial testimony describing a mutual-seeming encounter, Hutchinson s testimony that Wood admitted having sex with T.Z., and Wood s recorded interview in which she described resisting then ceasing resistance and later attending "Sexaholics Anonymous."
Jury instructions defined "subject" as "to bring under control or dominion," and the jury convicted Wood. No objection was raised to the instruction at trial.
Wood moved for a new trial (arguing insufficiency of evidence) and challenged the denial of a motion in limine to exclude evidence of Sexaholics Anonymous; both contentions were rejected on appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wood)	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to show Wood "subjected" T.Z. to sexual penetration under § 28-322.04(2)-(3)	"Subject" means to cause the person to undergo the sexual act; Wood participated and thus caused penetration	Wood argued she did not "subject" T.Z. because he effectuated penetration and was the aggressor; she lacked control or dominion	Held: "Subject" means "to cause to undergo the action of something specified." Viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational jury could find Wood caused T.Z. to undergo penetration; sufficiency affirmed.
Whether the district court abused discretion by denying a new trial based on insufficiency	The conviction was supported by the evidence; no substantial right violated	Same sufficiency argument as above; requests new trial	Held: Denial of new trial not an abuse of discretion because evidence supported conviction and no prejudice shown.
Whether the jury instruction defining "subject" as "bring under control or dominion" was erroneous and prejudicial	Instruction narrower than court s prior interpretation but jury still convicted on evidence that would satisfy broader definition	Instruction error argued as inconsistent with statutory meaning, potentially prejudicial	Held: Instruction was erroneous compared to precedent but harmless because jury convicted under the narrower definition and no prejudice shown.
Whether admission of Wood's attendance at Sexaholics Anonymous should have been excluded via motion in limine	Such evidence was relevant and admitted at trial without objection	Wood argued in limine that it should be excluded under evidentiary rules	Held: Ruling on motion in limine not preserved because Wood did not object at trial; issue not reviewable.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Loyuk, 289 Neb. 967 (2015) ("subject" means to cause to undergo the action specified)
State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (2015) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial)
State v. Dominguez, 290 Neb. 477 (2015) (sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231 (2016) (appellate courts independently decide statutory questions)
State v. Robbins, 253 Neb. 146 (1997) (statutory construction principles)
State v. Abram, 284 Neb. 55 (2012) (harmless-error analysis for jury instructions)
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) (new trial requires showing prejudice to substantial right)
State v. Almasaudi, 282 Neb. 162 (2011) (motion in limine rulings not final; objections at trial required to preserve admissibility issues)