Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Robyn J. Wood’s conviction for first degree sexual abuse of a protected individual under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.04. The court held that “subject” means to cause a protected individual to undergo sexual penetration, rejected Wood’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, found any instructional error harmless, and held that her evidentiary challenge concerning Sexaholics Anonymous evidence was not preserved.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Wood subjected T.Z. to sexual penetration under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-322.04.
- Whether the district court erred by instructing the jury that "subject" means "to bring under control or dominion."
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Wood's motion for new trial based on insufficient evidence.
- Whether Wood preserved her challenge to evidence concerning her attendance at Sexaholics Anonymous when she did not object to that evidence at trial.
Holdings
- Under § 28-322.04, "subject" means "to cause to undergo the action of something specified." A defendant may subject a protected individual to sexual penetration by participating in the sexual act; the defendant need not personally effectuate the penetration or exercise control or dominion over the victim.
- The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Wood subjected T.Z. to sexual penetration.
- Although the district court gave an erroneous, narrower definition of "subject," the error was harmless because the jury found the essential elements under the narrower definition and the record showed no material influence on the verdict.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wood's motion for new trial.
- Wood did not preserve her challenge to the Sexaholics Anonymous evidence because she failed to object when the evidence was introduced at trial.
Key quotations
“The plain meaning of ‘subject’ is ‘to cause to undergo the action of something specified.’ Here, the thing specified is sexual penetration and [the appellant] caused [the victim] to undergo this action by participating in the sexual act.” (296 Neb. at 748)
“Therefore, we hold that under § 28‑322.04, the word “subject” means to cause to undergo the action of something specified.” (296 Neb. at 748-749)
“And like T.Z.’s consent, his role in effectuating the sexual penetration is immaterial.” (296 Neb. at 749)
Factual background
Wood was a shift manager at Boys Town, where T.Z., a 17-year-old protected individual in state custody, resided. Evidence showed that Wood developed an unusually close relationship with T.Z., including preferential treatment, private meetings, and conduct inconsistent with workplace boundary policies. Wood and T.Z. engaged in sexual intercourse at an unoccupied Boys Town building; their accounts differed regarding consent and the circumstances, but Wood's interview included admissions that she participated in the sexual act. The jury convicted Wood under Nebraska's statute prohibiting a person from subjecting a protected individual to sexual penetration.
Procedural history
A Douglas County District Court jury convicted Wood of first degree sexual abuse of a protected individual. The district court denied Wood's motion for new trial and sentenced her to five years' probation. Wood appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, denial of her motion for new trial, the jury instruction defining "subject," and the admission of evidence concerning her attendance at Sexaholics Anonymous. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.