State v. McCurdy

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment upholding Michael W. McCurdy’s convictions and sentences for sexual assault and child abuse. The court held that sufficient evidence supported his conviction for first degree sexual assault because the sexual penetration was without the victim’s consent, and explained that “coercion” under Nebraska law includes nonphysical force. The court also addressed alternative theories of criminal liability and the statutory definition of “without consent.”

Holdings

1. In reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asks whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt; it does not resolve conflicts, assess credibility, or reweigh evidence.
2. When an offense is charged under alternative statutory theories, a conviction must be affirmed if the evidence is sufficient to support any one of the charged alternatives, and the court need not address the sufficiency of the other alternatives once one sufficient theory is established.
3. "Coercion" in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-318(8)(a)(i) includes nonphysical force.
4. The evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to find that McCurdy compelled J.U. to submit to sexual penetration without consent through coercion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported McCurdy's conviction for first degree sexual assault of J.U. under the alternative theory that the sexual penetration occurred without her consent.
2. Whether the court could affirm the conviction based on one sufficient alternative theory without deciding whether sufficient evidence supported the alternative theory that J.U. was mentally incapable of consent.
3. Whether the statutory term "coercion" in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-318(8)(a)(i) includes nonphysical force.
4. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its disposition of McCurdy's claims concerning expert testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, and DNA evidence.

Disposition

affirmed