State v. Quinn

• Decision Date: 06 December 2022
• Docket Number: A-21-1038
• Parties: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. William J. Quinn, appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Court of Appeals

State of Nebraska, appellee,
v.
William J. Quinn, appellant.

No. A-21-1038

Court of Appeals of Nebraska

December 6, 2022

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 District Court for Furnas County: James E. Doyle IV, Judge.

Charles D. Brewster, of Anderson, Klein, Brewster & Brandt, for appellant.

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. Vincent for appellee.

Moore, Riedmann, and Bishop, Judges.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

Moore, Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

William J. Quinn appeals from his convictions following a jury trial in the district court for Furnas County of three counts of first degree sexual assault of a child, two counts of sex trafficking of a minor, three counts of manufacturing a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, two counts of possession of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, two counts of enticement by an electronic communication device, and one count of child abuse. On appeal, Quinn claims that the district erred in certain evidentiary rulings and in failing to grant his motion to dismiss and motion for mistrial. He also claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for specific counts, that he received an excessive sentence, and that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. Finding no error, we affirm.

1

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case arises out of a relationship between Quinn, born April 1964, and C.G., born October 2003. Quinn and C.G. began communicating over social media in March 2019 and developed a sexual relationship in June when C.G. moved back to Nebraska.

1. Pretrial Proceedings

On April 7, 2020, Quinn was charged by information with four felony counts arising out of his involvement with C.G. A preliminary hearing was held on March 13.

On July 8, 2020, the State filed an amended information which charged Quinn with four counts of first degree sexual assault of a child in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319.01(1)(b) (Reissue 2016), a Class IB felony; one count of first degree sexual assault in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319 (Reissue 2016), a Class II felony; two counts of sex trafficking of a minor in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-830 (Cum. Supp. 2020), a Class IB felony; three counts of manufacturing a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1463.03(1) (Reissue 2016), a Class ID felony; two counts of possession of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-813.01(1) (Cum. Supp. 2020), a Class IIA felony; two counts of enticement by an electronic communication device in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-833 (Reissue 2016), a Class IV felony; and one count of child abuse in violation of § 28-707 (Cum. Supp. 2020), a Class IIIA felony. Quinn thereafter entered a plea of not guilty to all charges set forth in the amended information and waived a preliminary hearing related to the amended information.

(a) Motion for Change of Venue

On February 16, 2021, Quinn filed a motion for a change of venue, alleging that the "excessive" media coverage in Furnas County had inundated the jury pool to the point that a fair and impartial jury could not be impaneled in the county. In an amended motion for a change of venue, Quinn further alleged that a search for his name in Nebraska-based media produced 61 news stories related to his case and that the pretrial publicity included "inflammatory" information such as detailing the nature of his criminal charges, testimony from the preliminary hearing related to the original information, and noting the convictions of other individuals involved in the case.

A hearing on Quinn's motion was held on April 12, 2021, when Quinn offered multiple news articles reporting on his case. On May 3, the district court denied Quinn's motion for a change of venue, noting that the offered exhibits indicated no hostility or animosity towards Quinn, nor did any of the news articles appear to be factually inaccurate. The court further observed that the only evidence reported on by the media was testimony elicited at the preliminary hearing, and that the arrest affidavits had been sealed and were unavailable to both the public and members of the media.

(b) Intent to Offer 404 Evidence

On April 27, 2021, the State filed a notice of intent to offer 404 evidence regarding Quinn's involvement in commercial sex trafficking encounters between S.G., C.G.'s older sister, and Daniel Nagy. The State alleged that the evidence was admissible for the specific and limited purposes of showing Quinn's intent, knowledge, and the absence of mistake or accident concerning

2

his human trafficking counts. On May 13, Quinn filed a motion in limine to preclude the State from offering the evidence related to S.G. and Nagy, alleging that the evidence was "classic propensity evidence" and that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

A hearing on both evidentiary motions was held on May 20, 2021. S.G. testified that in early 2018, she worked in a café owned by Quinn. A few months into her employment, Quinn began groping S.G.'s breasts and buttocks without her consent. Soon after, Quinn and S.G. began to have sexual intercourse, for which Quinn would pay S.G. Though S.G. asked Quinn to stop, he would remind S.G. that she was earning money for her family. S.G. testified that she did not enjoy engaging in commercial sex, but that she found it was easier to "just do it to get it done, and then it was okay." S.G. described feeling trapped by Quinn and that she had been "subtly threatened."

In the fall of 2018, when S.G. was 32 years old, Quinn approached S.G. about having intercourse with Nagy, a friend of Quinn's, noting that S.G. owed him a favor. S.G. described Quinn transporting her to Nagy's home, where she performed oral sex on Nagy. Afterwards, Nagy paid S.G. $50 and S.G. called Quinn to pick her up. S.G. noted that she performed commercial oral sex on Nagy two or three times, and that she never communicated directly with Nagy about the arrangement. Quinn would arrange the encounters between S.G. and Nagy, informing S.G. only minutes before the commercial sex was to occur.

Nagy testified consistently with S.G. In 2018, Quinn made arrangements to bring S.G. over to Nagy's home for a sexual encounter on three occasions. After S.G. performed oral sex, Nagy paid her $50, per Quinn's instructions. Nagy stated that Quinn orchestrated the encounters and that he did not communicate with S.G. directly.

In addition to the testimony of S.G. and Nagy, the State offered a transcript of Quinn's preliminary hearing on the original information and C.G.'s deposition. Quinn argued that the factual circumstances between the sexual encounters with S.G. and alleged encounters with C.G. were too different to be instructive to the jury.

In an order filed June 7, 2021, the district court sustained the State's notice of intent to offer 404 evidence. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that S.G.'s and Nagy's testimony was relevant for the purpose of showing intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake with regard to Quinn's human trafficking counts. The court further observed that the probative value of the testimony substantially outweighed the potential for unfair prejudice. In another order filed the same day, the court denied Quinn's motion in limine related to S.G.'s and Nagy's testimony.

(c) Pretrial Hearing

A journal entry filed by the district court on June 18, 2021, reflects that a pretrial hearing was held on June 14. The journal entry notes that the State moved to clarify each party's position on the proper venue for trial, and that comments were made by both parties regarding their position. However, the journal entry does not provide the position of each party regarding venue, nor is a bill of exception of the pretrial hearing included in our record. The journal entry also referenced the State's motion to dismiss Count I of the amended information, one of four counts of first degree sexual assault of child. Quinn did not object and the district court ordered the State to file a second amended information. A second amended information was filed by the State on June 16.

3

2. Trial

Trial was held over 8 days in June 2021. Over 30 witnesses testified and over 200 exhibits were offered into evidence. We have limited our recitation of the evidence adduced at trial to those details relevant to Quinn's assignments of error on appeal. Additionally, where we offer examples of Quinn's and C.G.'s correspondence and internet search history, we have directly quoted the parties' language.

(a) State's Evidence

C.G. testified that she was born in October 2003 and spent her early childhood in Nebraska. In the spring of 2019, C.G. was 15 years old and living with family in North Carolina. During that time, Quinn reached out to C.G. through Facebook to ask if C.G. wanted a job waitressing at his café in Oxford, Nebraska. C.G. knew of Quinn as several of her older siblings worked for him in some capacity. C.G. told Quinn that she was interested in the job and the two began daily communication over Facebook, phone calls, and text messages. Within the first 3 days of C.G.'s and Quinn's communication, C.G. told Quinn that she was 16 years old because she believed she needed to be 16 in order to secure the waitressing position. However, a few days later C.G. told Quinn that she was actually 15 years old. Quinn advised that C.G. would be able to work for him no matter her age.

Within the first week of their communication, Quinn asked C.G. for a naked picture of herself. While C.G. initially denied Quinn's request and was "a little creeped out," she began sending Quinn explicit photos of...