Scope of Record-Based Sexual Contact Findings Under Nebraska’s SORA: State v. Strawn

Introduction

In State v. Strawn, 318 Neb. 859 (2025), the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant may be ordered to register under the Sex Offender Registration Act (“SORA”) when the plea hearing factual basis omits any reference to sexual contact but the presentence investigation report (“PSR”) contains evidence of such contact. John G. Strawn had pleaded no contest to two counts of third degree assault pursuant to a plea agreement that deliberately excluded sexual conduct from the stipulated facts. At sentencing, however, the county court reviewed the PSR, found evidence that met the statutory definition of “sexual contact,” and ordered SORA registration. Strawn appealed via the district court to the Supreme Court of Nebraska, challenging the court’s statutory interpretation, evidentiary reasoning, credibility determinations, and due process.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the lower courts. It held that:

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-4003(1)(b)(i)(B), the trial court must consider the entire “record” (including both plea hearing facts and PSR) when deciding SORA registration, but it need not find sexual contact in both documents independently.
The conjunctive “and” in the statute directs courts to review both sources, not to require dual proof of sexual contact in each.
There is no requirement that the trial court make an express credibility finding before ordering registration; sufficiency review applies and an appellate court will affirm if a rational fact-finder could be firmly convinced, by clear and convincing evidence, that sexual contact occurred.
The procedural due process rights of the defendant were honored: Strawn received notice, an opportunity to contest, and a court hearing on the registration issue.
Advisement regarding potential federal firearms prohibitions did not itself impose any firearms ban.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

State v. Norman, 282 Neb. 990 (2012) (“Norman I”) – Held that before imposing SORA registration under § 29-4003(1)(b)(i)(B), a court must give notice, hold a hearing, and make a clear-and-convincing-evidence finding of sexual penetration or contact.
State v. Norman, 285 Neb. 72 (2013) (“Norman II”) – Clarified that appellate review of SORA registration findings employs the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard augmented by the clear-and-convincing proof requirement.
State v. Avey, 288 Neb. 233 (2014) – Outlined error-on-the-record and independent review of legal questions on appeals from county court.
State v. Clausen, ante p. 375 (2025) – Reiterated that courts must not read into a statute meanings absent from its plain text.
In re Interest of Levanta S., 295 Neb. 151 (2016) – Discussed conjunctive lists in statutory interpretation, confirming that “and” ordinarily conjoins elements to be considered, not to be met separately.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began with well-settled principles of statutory interpretation: a statute’s plain language governs, and courts may not insert requirements not found in the text. Section 29-4003(1)(b)(i)(B) conditions SORA registration for non-sexual offenses (such as third degree assault) on a court finding “that evidence of sexual penetration or sexual contact . . . was present in the record, which shall include consideration of the factual basis for a plea-based conviction and information contained in the presentence report.” Strawn argued that the use of “and” demanded independent findings of sexual contact in both the plea facts and the PSR. The Court disagreed, concluding that “and” simply directs courts to examine both sources as part of the record; it does not create a dual-proof hurdle.

Turning to the sufficiency of evidence challenge, the Court applied the Norman II framework: viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could any rational fact-finder have been “firmly convinced” by clear and convincing evidence that Strawn subjected J.B. to sexual contact? The detailed police reports in the PSR—describing forcible touching of hair, an erect penis pressed to the victim’s body, flight into a locked bathroom, and corroborating observations of trauma—easily met that standard. The Court stressed that appellate tribunals do not reweigh evidence or pass on witness credibility in such reviews.

On procedural due process, the Court reaffirmed Norman I’s safeguard requirements. Strawn received explicit notice at the plea hearing that SORA registration would be decided at sentencing, he submitted briefing and argument on the issue, and the court afforded him the opportunity to be heard before making its determination.

Impact

State v. Strawn clarifies key aspects of SORA’s operation:

Plea agreements omitting sexual allegations will not immunize defendants from registration if the PSR supplies clear evidence of sexual contact.
Trial courts must review both the factual basis and the PSR but need not find sexual conduct in both independently.
Defendants retain full due process rights—notice, hearing, and clear-and-convincing proof—before registration can be imposed.

Going forward, practitioners should ensure that plea negotiations account for potential registration based on collateral materials, and trial courts should carefully document their record review and findings in SORA matters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

SORA Registration Trigger: Some crimes not inherently sexual (like third degree assault) can trigger sex-offender registration if the court finds evidence of sexual contact in the case record.
“Record” for SORA Purposes: Includes both the factual basis at plea and the PSR; courts must examine both but need not find sexual contact in each separately.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: A higher standard than “preponderance” but lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The fact-finder must be substantially sure the alleged conduct occurred.
Sufficiency Standard on Appeal: Appellate courts view evidence in the light most favorable to the State and uphold the trial court’s finding if any rational fact-finder could be firmly convinced under the clear-and-convincing standard.
Procedural Due Process: Defendants must receive notice that registration is under consideration, an opportunity to contest evidence, and a reasoned decision before being ordered to register.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Strawn solidifies the boundaries of SORA registration for plea-based convictions. By reaffirming that the entire case record may be used to identify sexual contact—even if omitted from the plea facts—the Court protects public safety while respecting defendants’ procedural rights. The ruling ensures that trial courts properly interpret § 29-4003(1)(b)(i)(B), apply the clear-and-convincing evidence standard, and document their reasoning in SORA determinations. In the broader legal landscape, Strawn provides clarity for defense counsel negotiating plea agreements, for trial courts adjudicating registration issues, and for appellate courts reviewing those decisions.