Opinion
No. A-11-075.
08-09-2011
IN RE INTEREST OF JEFFREY P. IN RE INTEREST OF JEFFREY P., A CHILD UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE. STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE, v. JEFFREY P., APPELLANT.
Chad M. Brown, of Chad Brown Law Offices, for appellant. Carolyn A. Rothery, Deputy Sarpy County Attorney, for appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).
Appeal from the Separate Juvenile Court of Sarpy County: Lawrence D. Gendler, Judge. Affirmed.
Chad M. Brown, of Chad Brown Law Offices, for appellant.
Carolyn A. Rothery, Deputy Sarpy County Attorney, for appellee.
INBODY, Chief Judge, and IRWIN and CASSEL, Judges. IRWIN, Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Jeffrey P., a juvenile under the age of 18 years, appeals an order of the separate juvenile court of Sarpy County, sitting as a juvenile court, which order adjudged Jeffrey to be a juvenile within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(3)(b) (Reissue 2008). Jeffrey's sole assignment of error on appeal is that the court erred in finding the allegations of the petition to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. Because we find sufficient evidence to support the court's judgment, we affirm. Pursuant to this court's authority under Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-111(B)(1) (rev. 2008), this case was ordered submitted without oral argument.
II. BACKGROUND
On July 16, 2010, the State filed a petition alleging that Jeffrey had, on February 25, "touched or attempted to have C.C. touch Jeffrey in a sexually explicit manner." The State alleged that Jeffrey deported "himself so as to injure or endanger seriously the morals or health of him/herself or others" and that he was a child as described in § 43-247(3)(b).
At the adjudication hearing, the victim, C.C., who was 8 years old at the time of the alleged incident, testified that he and his uncle Jeffrey, then 16 years old, were playing video games when Jeffrey grabbed C.C.'s arms and "forced me to touch his pee-pee." C.C. stated that he ran into the bathroom and washed his hands because of the forced touching.
C.C.'s mother testified that she was in the living room while the two boys were playing video games in C.C.'s bedroom, when she heard loud noises, including C.C.'s screaming and calling for her. She stated that she initially thought the boys were roughhousing and got up to ask them to quiet down when the bedroom door was flung open and the bathroom door banged shut and she could hear water running. C.C.'s mother testified that when C.C. emerged from the bathroom, he "had a serious look on his face, kind of pouting lips, and his head was kind of down," and that he said, "Jeff's doing bad things with his pee-pee. He's trying to make me do bad things with his pee-pee." She said C.C. later described to her in more detail that Jeffrey had grabbed C.C.'s arm and hand and tried to make him touch Jeffrey's penis. C.C.'s mother stated that Jeffrey was somewhat unresponsive to her questioning about what had just occurred, but that he had tears in his eyes and was very upset, saying only that nothing had happened and claiming not to understand her questions.
A Bellevue police officer interviewed C.C. shortly after the incident. She testified that C.C. referred to the male genitalia as a "pee-pee" and that he told her that Jeffrey had tried to make him touch his penis, although he was not entirely sure if he had actually touched it. The same police officer also interviewed Jeffrey, who denied C.C.'s claims, stating that the two had been wrestling. She described Jeffrey's demeanor as emotionless, which she found unusual for someone being accused of such an incident.
Jeffrey testified that the two were playing video games and began wrestling. He stated that he was tickling C.C. when C.C. said "Ewww" and went into the bathroom. Jeffrey denied that his penis was exposed or that he had attempted to force C.C. to touch his penis.
The court found that C.C.'s testimony, despite some conflicts concerning specific details of the day of the incident, was sufficient to support adjudicating Jeffrey to be within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(b). This appeal followed.
III. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Jeffrey asserts that the juvenile court erred in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he had committed the allegations contained in the petition.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Juvenile cases are reviewed de novo on the record, and an appellate court is required to reach a conclusion independent of the juvenile court's findings. In re Interest of Phoenix L., 270 Neb. 870, 708 N.W.2d 786 (2006). The findings of fact made by the juvenile court will be accorded great weight because it heard and observed the witnesses and can better judge their credibility. In re Interest of Jeffrey K., 14 Neb. App. 818, 717 N.W.2d 499 (2006).
V. ANALYSIS
Jeffrey's sole assignment of error on appeal is a challenge to the court's finding that the allegations of the petition were true and the court's adjudication of him based on those findings. Jeffrey bases his arguments on appeal on alleged discrepancies in the details of C.C.'s testimony about the day in question, particularly as to whether C.C. actually touched Jeffrey's penis. We find that, considering the trial court heard and observed the witnesses and was in a better position to determine issues of credibility, the evidence is sufficient to support the court's findings and adjudication.
Jeffrey's appeal can be entirely characterized as presenting a challenge to the trial court's conclusions about C.C.'s credibility. As noted above, C.C. presented testimony at the adjudication hearing specifically alleging that Jeffrey had initiated sexual contact with him. It is true, as Jeffrey asserts on appeal, that some evidence was in conflict, primarily concerning details of whether he had actually touched Jeffrey's penis. C.C., however, gave detailed testimony of the incident with Jeffrey.
C.C. testified that Jeffrey had "forced me to touch his pee-pee." Testimony by C.C.'s mother and the officer who interviewed C.C. immediately following the incident indicated that C.C. had told them that Jeffrey had forced C.C. to touch his penis. This evidence is sufficient to support the court's finding that the allegations of the petition were true. As such, we must affirm the court's judgment.
VI. CONCLUSION
We find sufficient evidence to support the court's finding that the allegations of the petition were true and the court's holding adjudicating Jeffrey to be within the meaning of § 43-247(3)(b). The court's judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.