A-23-0138, State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Kenneth R. Farley (Appellant)
Lancaster County, District Judge Ryan S. Post
Attorneys for Appellant: Sarah Newell (Barry Law Firm)
Attorney for Appellee: Michael T. Hilgers & P. Christian Adamski (Attorney General’s Office)
Criminal Action: First Degree Sexual Assault of a Child
Action taken by Trial Court: Farley was charged by information with three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child; each count corresponding with a different alleged victim. The district court denied Farley’s motion to sever, finding that the charges were the same or similar in character and that the evidence was sufficiently simple and distinct for the jury to easily separate evidence of the charges during deliberations.
During a jury trial the district court granted the State’s motion in limine, precluding Farley’s expert witness from testifying about the traits of adolescent conduct disorder and some correspondence to an increased likelihood of false reporting. The court found that the theory did not pass muster under Daubert/Schafersman factors and thus would be excluded. The court also found that the theory was inapplicable to the facts of the case given that none of the three alleged victims had been diagnosed with adolescent conduct disorder.
During deliberations the jury sent the district court a question, asking if they could consider events outside of the timeline set out in the information for one of the counts. The court responded that the exact time when a criminal offense is committed is not an essential element of first degree sexual assault of a child.
The jury then returned a verdict of guilty as to one count, not guilty as to another count, and was hung as to the remaining count. The State ultimatly moved to dismiss the count without a unanimous jury verdict, which the district court granted. Farley moved for a new trial, which the court denied.
Farley was sentenced to a term of 55 to 70 years’ imprisonment.
Assignments of Error on Appeal: Farley assigns, restated and consolidated, that the district court erred in (1) denying Farley’s motion to sever; (2) granting the State’s motion in limine and excluding a portion of the defense expert’s testimony; (3) issuing a supplemental jury instruction regarding the consideration of events outside of the timeline contained in the information; (4) various evidentiary rulings; (5) denying Farley’s motion for a new trial; and (6) imposing an excessive sentence.