- 261 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. 

Barbara J. Williams, appellant.

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed June 26, 2020. No. S-19-894.

1. Trial: Witnesses. Whether a party may recall a witness to introduce 

further testimony after the party rests is within the discretion of the 

trial court.

2. Motions to Dismiss: Directed Verdict. A motion to dismiss in a nonjury trial is equivalent to a directed verdict in a jury trial.

3. Directed Verdict: Evidence: Appeal and Error. When a motion for a 

directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence is overruled by the 

trial court, appellate review is controlled by the rule that a directed verdict is proper only where reasonable minds cannot differ and can draw 

but one conclusion from the evidence, and the issues should be decided 

as a matter of law.

4. Criminal Law: Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. When 

reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence to 

sustain the conviction, the relevant question for an appellate court is 

whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Sentences: Judgments: Appeal and Error: Words and Phrases. An 

appellate court reviews criminal sentences for abuse of discretion, 

which occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that 

are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or 

conscience, reason, and evidence.

6. Criminal Law: Trial. A trial court has discretion to permit a party to 

withdraw its rest in a trial on the merits in criminal prosecutions.

7. Trial: Witnesses: Evidence. It is not an abuse of discretion to permit 

the State to recall a witness for the purpose of filling in gaps in proof or 

to introduce an exhibit that the party had inadvertently failed to offer, as 

long as the court does not advocate for or advise the State to do so.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

08/21/2020 08:08 AM CDT
- 262 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

8. Criminal Law: Words and Phrases. Serious bodily injury means 

bodily injury which involves a (1) substantial risk of death, (2) substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, or (3) protracted loss or 

impairment of the function or any part or organ of the body.

9. Criminal Law: Directed Verdict. In a criminal case, the court can 

direct a verdict only when (1) there is a complete failure of evidence 

to establish an essential element of the crime charged or (2) evidence is 

so doubtful in character and lacking in probative value that a finding of 

guilt based on such evidence cannot be sustained.

10. Criminal Law: Directed Verdict: Appeal and Error. When an appellate court considers a criminal defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, 

the State is entitled to have all of its relevant evidence accepted as true, 

every controverted fact resolved in its favor, and every beneficial inference reasonably deducible from the evidence. If there is any evidence 

which will sustain a finding for the party against whom a motion for 

directed verdict is made, the case may not be decided as a matter of law, 

and a verdict may not be directed.

11. Expert Witnesses. Where the injuries are objective and the conclusion 

to be drawn from proved basic facts does not require special technical knowledge or science, the use of expert testimony is not legally 

necessary.

12. Testimony. There is nothing which prohibits the trier of fact from considering the victim’s testimony concerning his or her own injuries to the 

extent the victim has knowledge of his or her injuries.

13. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a criminal 

conviction for a sufficiency of the evidence claim, whether the evidence 

is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the 

same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass 

on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are 

for the finder of fact. The relevant question is whether, after viewing the 

evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier 

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a 

reasonable doubt.

14. Verdicts: Appeal and Error. Only where evidence lacks sufficient probative value as a matter of law may an appellate court set aside a guilty 

verdict as unsupported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

15. Sentences: Appeal and Error. Where a sentence imposed within the 

statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court 

must determine whether a sentencing court abused its discretion in considering and applying the relevant factors as well as any applicable legal 

principles in determining the sentence to be imposed.
- 263 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

16. Sentences. In determining a sentence to be imposed, relevant factors 

customarily considered and applied are the defendant’s (1) age, (2) 

mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct, 

and (6) motivation for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the 

offense and (8) the amount of violence involved in the commission of 

the crime.

17. ____. The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge’s observation of the defendant’s 

demeanor and attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding 

the defendant’s life.

Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: Stefanie 

A. Martinez, Judge. Affirmed.

Thomas P. Strigenz, Sarpy County Public Defender, for 

appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Siobhan E. 

Duffy for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

and Papik, JJ.

Heavican, C.J.

INTRODUCTION

Barbara J. Williams was convicted by the trial court of 

negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury and 

sentenced to incarceration for a term of not less than 2 years 

nor more than 3 years. Williams appeals her conviction and 

sentence. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

K.M. was born in November 1997 with leukodystrophy, a 

rare neurological disorder. As a result of the disorder, K.M. 

is blind and has only a limited ability to communicate using 

eye movements, facial expressions, and cooing sounds. K.M. 

also lacks the ability to engage in any purposeful movement 

other than slight movements of her head. She is confined to a 

wheelchair, uses diapers, and is fed with a “G-tube” through 
- 264 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

a stoma in her abdomen. K.M. resides with her parents, upon 

whom she is entirely dependent.

In 2014, K.M.’s parents were using an in-home nursing 

agency, Interim Healthcare (Interim), to provide care for K.M. 

while they were at work. Williams, a licensed practical nurse 

employed by Interim, provided in-home nursing care for K.M. 

on July 17 and 18. K.M. was 16 years old at the time. Williams 

was charged with child abuse under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-707 

(Cum. Supp. 2014) after K.M. was admitted to the burn unit at 

a medical center in Omaha, Nebraska, on July 18, with burns 

to her perineal area, inner thighs, and buttocks.

After her first trial ended in a mistrial and the Nebraska 

Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Williams’ plea in bar, 1

the case proceeded to a bench trial. The following evidence 

was presented:

During the week of July 14, 2014, Williams came to K.M.’s 

home for a training session with K.M.’s adult sister, who was 

providing care for K.M. K.M.’s sister testified that as part of 

the training session, she explained to Williams her routine of 

showering K.M., which began with placing K.M. on a rolling 

shower chair and undressing her before rolling her into the 

shower. Williams was shown the bathroom, shower, shower 

chair, and detachable showerhead. The routine included taking 

the showerhead from the holder and testing the water temperature prior to beginning K.M.’s shower. K.M.’s sister testified that after she explained the shower routine to Williams, 

Williams indicated she understood.

On the morning of July 18, 2014, K.M.’s mother observed 

two small “rub marks” that were between 1 and 2 inches in 

length in K.M.’s diaper area. K.M.’s mother testified that K.M. 

frequently had these marks, which were caused by the elastic 

on her diaper, and that Calmoseptine, a skin protectant, was 

applied to these marks and to the area around K.M.’s G-tube. 

Williams arrived and offered to shower K.M. after she and 

K.M.’s mother spoke about K.M.’s hair appearing greasy. 

1 State v. Williams, 24 Neb. App. 920, 901 N.W.2d 334 (2017).
- 265 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

K.M.’s mother agreed. Williams remained at the home to care 

for K.M. after K.M.’s mother left for work.

That evening, K.M.’s father arrived home from work early 

and was greeted at the entryway by Williams. K.M. was 

lying on the couch, and her legs were covered with a blanket. 

Williams told K.M.’s father that she had given K.M. a shower, 

that she had scrubbed some skin from K.M.’s diaper area, and 

that she had applied baby oil and Calmoseptine to the area. 

Williams also stated that she had recently changed K.M.’s diaper and that the diaper would not need to be changed again for 

a couple of hours.

Williams followed K.M.’s father into the kitchen and asked 

him to sign some paperwork. K.M.’s father testified that 

Williams presented him with two pages of paperwork. The 

top page, which did not contain any writing, covered the page 

underneath so that only the signature line on the second page 

was visible. K.M.’s father testified that he signed the paperwork. When he told Williams that he had never been asked to 

sign that type of paperwork before, she stated that it was “just 

routine paperwork that everybody should be filling out.”

After Williams left, K.M.’s father noticed that K.M. 

appeared to be uncomfortable and sleepy. He repositioned her 

on the couch and then sat with her, watching television. K.M.’s 

mother joined them on the couch after she arrived home from 

work. K.M.’s mother observed that K.M. was acting unusual 

in that she appeared “zoned out” and was not responding to 

her mother.

Later that evening, K.M.’s mother removed the blanket from 

K.M.’s legs to change her diaper and noticed that K.M.’s thighs 

were bright red. She then pulled K.M.’s diaper down and saw 

that K.M.’s entire perineal area was bright red and covered 

with Calmoseptine. K.M.’s parents drove her to the emergency 

department of a local hospital in Omaha; K.M. was then transferred by ambulance to the burn unit at the medical center. 

K.M. remained in the burn unit for 19 days.
- 266 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

When K.M.’s father returned home from the hospital, he 

found three soiled cloth pads in the family’s basket for clean 

laundry. There were clear liquid stains on the pads, along with 

a large amount of Calmoseptine and some bile. K.M.’s father 

testified that these pads are generally used under K.M. to 

catch urine, feces, or bile from K.M.’s G-tube. He also testified that he had never put soiled pads in the basket for clean 

laundry, nor had he ever seen soiled pads in that basket as 

the soiled pads are left in front of the washing machine to be 

laundered next.

Dr. Debra Reilly, a reconstructive plastic surgeon with a 

“burn fellowship,” treated K.M. in the burn unit. At trial, 

Reilly testified that K.M. suffered burns to her perineal area, 

anterior thighs, posterior thighs, and buttocks. When some of 

K.M.’s burns had not progressed to healing after 10 or 11 days, 

it was determined that K.M. required skin graft surgery. During 

the surgery, skin was removed from one part of K.M.’s body 

and transplanted onto another.

Reilly testified that K.M.’s injuries were most consistent 

with a scald burn, where a patient had been sitting in a bathtub. 

The parties stipulated that when the water in K.M.’s home was 

left to run for approximately 2 minutes, the temperature meas

ured 143.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Reilly estimated that based on 

K.M.’s age and the type of injury, she would have to have been 

exposed to the water for at least 10 seconds.

When Reilly was shown a picture depicting K.M.’s injury, 

she opined that blisters had formed on the injury because the 

top surface of the skin was gone. She testified that blisters 

usually form after a scald burn and that the liquid in a partial 

thickness burn blister is clear to yellow. Reilly explained that 

blisters can form within the first hour after a burn, or they can 

take up to 24 hours to form, and that if a blister pops very early 

on, the fluid will leak out.

Reilly testified that due to the relatively small size of K.M.’s 

burns, there was not a substantial risk of death from the burns. 

Reilly also stated that there was “no protracted functional 
- 267 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

impairment” to K.M.’s body. When asked whether the injury 

involved a substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement, 

Reilly stated that there was a 100-percent chance of disfigurement to some degree because the burns resulted in permanent 

scarring to the skin.

After Reilly finished testifying, but before the State rested 

its case, the State recalled K.M.’s mother over Williams’ 

objection. During the recall, a photograph depicting K.M.’s 

scar was admitted into evidence. K.M.’s mother also testified 

about K.M.’s injuries. She stated that as a result of the burns, 

K.M.’s perineal area was scarred and the skin that had been 

grafted was now “thin, very delicate,” and did not grow hair. 

She described K.M.’s skin as being compromised, in that K.M. 

now requires a special seating pad, and she said that if K.M. 

remains seated in her wheelchair for more than 6 hours at a 

time, open and blistering skin sores develop on her labia and 

buttocks. She also stated that K.M. is no longer able to wear 

jeans, shorts, or any clothing that contains a hard seam on the 

inside or outside of the thigh area because the seams cause 

irritation to the grafted skin and to the area from which the 

grafted skin was taken.

Interim’s nurses complete both timeslips and nursing treatment care charts while they are providing nursing care for a 

client. Interim’s administrator and director testified that the 

timeslips are used to document the time and dates that a nurse 

is with a client for payroll and billing purposes and contain a 

space for clients to sign off on the time documented.

Interim’s nursing treatment care charts document the nurse’s 

care of the client and contain the nurse’s signature indicating 

that he or she completed the documentation. Interim’s administrator and director testified that the client is not required to 

sign off on treatment care charts, but that if a client does sign 

off on a treatment care chart, the form cannot be blank when 

it is signed. She further testified that nurses are trained to 

fill out the care charts in real time while the service is being 

provided; however, there is no way to verify when the care 
- 268 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

charts are completed or if the documented cares were actually provided.

Williams’ care chart dated July 18, 2014, was presented at 

trial. The chart contained a two-page written narrative regarding K.M.’s care. Within the narrative were statements indicating that (1) at 8:41 a.m., Williams had given K.M. a head-totoe assessment and that K.M.’s “peri area” and the inner cracks 

of K.M.’s thighs were red; (2) at approximately 10:45 a.m., 

Williams showered K.M. and washed her hair; (3) the skin on 

K.M.’s peri area, inner thighs, and buttocks was peeling, and 

Williams applied baby oil, baby powder, and Calmoseptine to 

these areas; and (4) K.M. was in good and stable condition 

when Williams left her in her father’s care. K.M.’s father identified his signature on the last line of the chart.

At the close of the State’s case, Williams made a motion to 

dismiss the case on the grounds that the State failed to prove 

Williams was negligent and failed to prove serious bodily 

injury. The motion was overruled. Williams did not call any 

witnesses and presented no evidence. Williams renewed her 

motion to dismiss, which was again overruled.

The district court found Williams guilty of negligent child 

abuse resulting in serious bodily injury. After a presentence 

investigation report was completed, the district court found 

Williams was not a suitable candidate for probation and sentenced her to a term of incarceration of not less than 2 years 

nor more than 3 years.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Williams makes the following assignments of error: (1) 

The district court erred in allowing the State to recall K.M.’s 

mother, (2) the district court erred in overruling Williams’ 

motion to dismiss, (3) there was insufficient evidence to find 

Williams guilty of negligent child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury, (4) there was insufficient evidence to find 

Williams guilty of negligent child abuse, and (5) the district 

court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.
- 269 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] Whether a party may recall a witness to introduce further 

testimony after the party rests is within the discretion of the 

trial court. 2

[2,3] A motion to dismiss in a nonjury trial is equivalent to 

a directed verdict in a jury trial. 3 When a motion for a directed 

verdict made at the close of all the evidence is overruled by 

the trial court, appellate review is controlled by the rule that a 

directed verdict is proper only where reasonable minds cannot 

differ and can draw but one conclusion from the evidence, and 

the issues should be decided as a matter of law. 4

[4] When reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of 

the evidence to sustain the conviction, the relevant question 

for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier 

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 5

[5] An appellate court reviews criminal sentences for abuse 

of discretion, which occurs when a trial court’s decision is 

based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if 

its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and 

evidence. 6

ANALYSIS

Recalling K.M.’s Mother.

Williams first assigns that the district court erred in permitting the State to recall K.M.’s mother. Williams argues that 

the State should not have been permitted to recall this witness 

because her recall was for the purpose of providing new testimony and to offer an additional exhibit into evidence.

2 See Johnson v. City of Lincoln, 174 Neb. 837, 120 N.W.2d 297 (1963).

3 Kreus v. Stiles Service Ctr., 250 Neb. 526, 550 N.W.2d 320 (1996).

4 Jay v. Moog Automotive, 264 Neb. 875, 652 N.W.2d 872 (2002).

5 State v. Stubbendieck, 302 Neb. 702, 924 N.W.2d 711 (2019).

6 State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 369, 859 N.W.2d 877 (2015).
- 270 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

[6] As an initial matter, it appears this court has not yet 

determined the applicable standard of review for a trial court’s 

permitting a party to recall a witness prior to resting its case. A 

trial court has discretion to permit a party to withdraw its rest 

in a trial on the merits in criminal prosecutions. 7 We conclude 

that the correct standard when a party has not yet rested is, 

similarly, an abuse of discretion. 8

[7] It is not an abuse of discretion to permit the State to 

recall a witness for the purpose of filling in gaps in proof  9 or 

to introduce an exhibit that the party had inadvertently failed to 

offer, as long as the court does not advocate for or advise the 

State to do so. 10 In addition,

[a] witness may be recalled for either direct or crossexamination, for the purpose of impeachment, to explain 

or correct prior testimony, to correct and clarify specific 

details, to settle the testimony given by the witness when 

previously testifying, to avoid potential evidentiary problems, to recant previous false testimony, or to be examined on new matters. 11

[8] Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which 

involves a (1) substantial risk of death, (2) substantial risk 

of serious permanent disfigurement, or (3) protracted loss 

or impairment of the function or any part or organ of the 

body. 12 Prior to the recall of K.M.’s mother, Reilly testified 

that there was neither a substantial risk of death from K.M.’s 

injury nor a protracted functional impairment to the body. 

When asked whether the injury involved a substantial risk of 

7 See State v. Bol, 288 Neb. 144, 846 N.W.2d 241 (2014).

8 See, 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 443 at 415 (2013) (“[t]he matter of recalling 

witnesses ordinarily rests in the discretion of the trial court”).

9 See State v. Bol, supra note 7 (citing State v. Thomas, 236 Neb. 84, 459 

N.W.2d 204 (1990), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Boslau, 258 

Neb. 39, 601 N.W.2d 769 (1999)).

10 State v. Bol, supra note 7.

11 98 C.J.S., supra note 8, § 443 at 416.

12 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-109 (Reissue 2008).
- 271 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

serious permanent disfigurement, Reilly stated that there was 

a 100-percent chance of disfigurement because the resulting scar is permanent. Because Reilly did not use the term 

“serious” when describing K.M.’s disfigurement, the State 

recalled K.M.’s mother to prove K.M.’s burns were a serious 

bodily injury.

During her recall, K.M.’s mother testified about the extent 

of K.M.’s injury and the effect of the injury on K.M. The court 

did not advise the State to recall her, and the recall occurred 

before the State had rested its case. Further, Williams was 

aware that K.M.’s mother would be a witness at trial, and 

Williams had the opportunity to cross-examine K.M.’s mother 

after she was recalled. The district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the State to recall K.M.’s mother.

Williams’ Motion to Dismiss.

In her second assignment of error, Williams claims the district court erred in overruling her motion to dismiss after the 

State had closed its case. Williams argues her motion should 

have been granted because the State failed to prove that K.M.’s 

injury involved a substantial risk of serious permanent disfigurement so as to constitute a “serious bodily injury.”

[9,10] A motion to dismiss in a nonjury trial is equivalent 

to a directed verdict in a jury trial. 13 In a criminal case, the 

court can direct a verdict only when (1) there is a complete 

failure of evidence to establish an essential element of the 

crime charged or (2) evidence is so doubtful in character and 

lacking in probative value that a finding of guilt based on such 

evidence cannot be sustained. 14 When we consider a criminal 

defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, the State is entitled 

to have all of its relevant evidence accepted as true, every 

controverted fact resolved in its favor, and every beneficial 

inference reasonably deducible from the evidence. 15 If there 

13 Kreus v. Stiles Service Ctr., supra note 3.

14 State v. Johnson, 298 Neb. 491, 904 N.W.2d 714 (2017).

15 Id.
- 272 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

is any evidence which will sustain a finding for the party 

against whom a motion for directed verdict is made, the case 

may not be decided as a matter of law, and a verdict may not 

be directed. 16

Williams asserts the State failed to prove that K.M.’s permanent disfigurement was “serious” because at the time the State 

rested, there was no evidence presented regarding the appearance of the scar or how it affected K.M. The State maintains 

that the testimony by K.M.’s mother regarding the disfigurement was sufficient because expert medical testimony was not 

required to prove K.M.’s injury was serious. We agree.

[11,12] This court has held that “‘“[w]here the injuries are 

objective and the conclusion to be drawn from proved basic 

facts does not require special technical knowledge or science, 

the use of expert testimony is not legally necessary.”’” 17 In 

State v. Thomas,

 18 we stated: “There is nothing which prohibits 

the trier of fact from considering the victim’s testimony concerning his own injuries to the extent the victim has knowledge 

of his injuries.”

This case did not require expert testimony regarding the 

extent of K.M.’s disfigurement. A photograph depicting K.M.’s 

scar was admitted into evidence, and K.M.’s mother described 

the scar and the effect of the scarring on K.M. She testified 

that she applies lotion to K.M.’s skin in that area and that 

the skin is now compromised and does not grow hair. She 

explained that as a result of the scarring, K.M. requires a special seating pad, cannot sit in her wheelchair for longer than 6 

hours at a time, and is unable to wear shorts or any clothing 

with a hard seam. The State presented evidence demonstrating that K.M.’s injury resulted in a serious permanent disfigurement. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to establish 

16 Id.

17 State v. Costanzo, 227 Neb. 616, 623, 419 N.W.2d 156, 162 (1988) 

(quoting State v. Thomas, 210 Neb. 298, 314 N.W.2d 15 (1981)).

18 State v. Thomas, supra note 17, 210 Neb. at 300, 314 N.W.2d at 18.
- 273 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

serious bodily injury. The district court did not err in overruling Williams’ motion to dismiss.

Sufficiency of Evidence.

In her third and fourth assignments of error, Williams argues 

that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction.

[13] In reviewing a criminal conviction for a sufficiency 

of the evidence claim, whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: 

An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, 

pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; 

such matters are for the finder of fact. 19 The relevant question 

for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier 

of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime 

beyond a reasonable doubt. 20

First, Williams reasserts her claim that the State failed to 

prove serious bodily injury. We reject this claim, which we 

addressed above.

Next, Williams claims that she could not have been negligent because she did everything within her power to act appropriately in the situation and did not comprehend the extent of 

K.M.’s injuries. Williams asserts that the nursing treatment 

charts introduced at trial demonstrate that she had cared for 

K.M. appropriately and that no serious bodily injury had 

occurred. We find no merit to these arguments.

“[N]egligently,” in this context, “refers to criminal negligence and means that a person knew or should have known 

of the danger involved and acted recklessly, as defined in section 28-109, with respect to the safety or health of the minor 

child.” 21 Section 28-109 defines “[r]ecklessly” as

acting with respect to a material element of an offense 

when any person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable

19 State v. Ferguson, 301 Neb. 697, 919 N.W.2d 863 (2018).

20 Id.

21 § 28-707(9).
- 274 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

risk that the material element exists or will result from his 

or her conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and 

degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the 

actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to the actor, 

its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard 

of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the 

actor’s situation.

The State presented evidence to show that it is common 

knowledge that a person can be burned by water that is too 

hot, and because K.M. would be unable to communicate to 

a caregiver, a caregiver must test the water temperature prior 

to giving K.M. a shower. K.M.’s sister testified that Williams 

was shown the shower routine as part of her training session, 

which included first testing the water temperature. A nurse that 

had cared for K.M. on a full-time basis during the summer of 

2013 testified that she had showered K.M. every day that she 

cared for her. She said that as part of the showering process, 

she would test the water on her hand or forearm prior to putting K.M. in the shower so as not to burn her.

In support of Williams’ argument that she did not realize 

or comprehend the extent of K.M.’s injuries, Williams cites 

to Reilly’s testimony that there were no blisters present in a 

photograph presented at trial. However, the State presented 

evidence to show that there were blisters present and that the 

blisters had popped. Evidence was also presented to show 

that Williams observed K.M.’s injuries and then took steps to 

hide them.

When Reilly was shown a picture depicting K.M.’s injury, 

she opined that blisters had formed on the injury because the 

top surface of the skin was gone. Reilly testified that blisters 

usually form after a scald burn and that the liquid in a partial 

thickness burn blister is clear to yellow. Reilly explained that 

blisters can form within the first hour after a burn, or they can 

take up to 24 hours to form, and that if a blister pops very early 

on, the fluid will leak out.
- 275 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

K.M.’s father testified that when he arrived home on July 

18, 2014, Williams told him that she had recently changed 

K.M.’s diaper and then asked him to sign blank care treatment 

forms. He also testified that after arriving home from the hospital, he found soiled cloth pads with a large clear liquid stain 

in the family’s basket for clean laundry.

[14] As an appellate court, we do not resolve conflicts in 

the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh 

the evidence. 22 Only where evidence lacks sufficient probative 

value as a matter of law may an appellate court set aside a 

guilty verdict as unsupported by evidence beyond a reasonable 

doubt. 23 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 

the prosecution, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could 

have found the essential elements of the crime of negligent 

child abuse resulting in serious bodily injury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Williams’ Sentence.

In her fifth assignment of error, Williams argues that her 

sentence is excessive. Williams asserts that the district court 

failed to consider factors that made her a strong candidate for 

probation and that the court abused its discretion by giving the 

crime substantial weight. Williams claims her strong family 

connection, her employment at a grocery store, and the fact 

that she has not been charged with a serious crime for over 10 

years support a sentence of probation.

[15-17] Where a sentence imposed within the statutory 

limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court 

must determine whether a sentencing court abused its discretion in considering and applying the relevant factors as well 

as any applicable legal principles in determining the sentence 

to be imposed. 24 In determining a sentence to be imposed, 

22 State v. Thelen, 305 Neb. 334, 940 N.W.2d 259 (2020).

23 State v. Senn, 295 Neb. 315, 888 N.W.2d 716 (2016).

24 State v. Guzman, 305 Neb. 376, 940 N.W.2d 552 (2020).
- 276 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

STATE v. WILLIAMS

Cite as 306 Neb. 261

relevant factors customarily considered and applied are the 

defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past criminal 

record or record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) motivation for 

the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the offense and (8) the 

amount of violence involved in the commission of the crime. 25

The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective 

judgment and includes the sentencing judge’s observation of 

the defendant’s demeanor and attitude and all the facts and 

circumstances surrounding the defendant’s life. 26

Williams was convicted of a Class IIIA felony. The sentencing statute in effect at the time subjected Williams to a 

maximum of 5 years in prison. 27 Williams was sentenced to 

a term of incarceration of not less than 2 years nor more than 

3 years.

The sentence imposed was within the statutory limits, and 

the record shows the district court considered and applied each 

of the necessary sentencing factors. Williams has a criminal 

history, including a conviction for third degree assault, which 

was reduced from a charge of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony as part of a plea agreement; a disturbing the peace 

conviction, which was amended from third degree assault; and 

five prior charges of battery in Illinois. Further, Williams’ presentence report concluded that she was in the high risk range 

to reoffend. We do not find an abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Williams’ conviction and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Freudenberg, J., not participating.

25 Id.

26 Id.

27 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (Cum. Supp. 2014).