State v. Jeremiah T.

- 133 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
Jeremiah T., appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed June 6, 2025. 	No. S-24-815.
1. Criminal Law: Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Appeal and
Error. An appellate court reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion to
transfer a pending criminal proceeding to the juvenile court for an abuse
of discretion.
2. Rules of the Supreme Court: Appeal and Error. If further review
is granted, the Nebraska Supreme Court will review only the errors
assigned in the petition for further review and discussed in the support-
ing memorandum brief.
3. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Proof. In a motion to transfer
to juvenile court, the burden of proving a sound basis for retaining juris-
diction in county court or district court lies with the State.
4. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction: Evidence. When a district
court’s basis for retaining jurisdiction over a juvenile is supported by
appropriate evidence, it cannot be said that the court abused its discre-
tion in refusing to transfer the case to juvenile court.
5. Courts: Juvenile Courts: Jurisdiction. In order to retain proceed-
ings in criminal court, the court need not resolve every statutory factor
against the juvenile, and there are no weighted factors and no prescribed
method by which more or less weight is assigned to a specific factor.
It is a balancing test by which public protection and societal security
are weighed against the practical and nonproblematical rehabilitation of
the juvenile.
6. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists if the
reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriv-
ing a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in matters
submitted for disposition.
7. Courts: Expert Witnesses. As the trier of fact, the district court is not
required to take the opinions of experts as binding upon it.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/14/2026 07:59 AM CDT

- 134 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
8. Expert Witnesses: Witnesses: Testimony. Testimony of expert wit-
nesses is not treated any differently in the factfinding process than that
of witnesses generally when it comes to determining the weight and
credibility of the testimony.
9. Circumstantial Evidence: Proof. Circumstantial evidence is not inher-
ently less probative than direct evidence, and a fact proved by circum-
stantial evidence is nonetheless a proven fact.
10. Appeal and Error. Abuse of discretion is a highly deferential standard
of review.
Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, Pirtle,
Bishop, and Arterburn, Judges, on appeal thereto from the
District Court for Douglas County, Leigh Ann Retelsdorf,
Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and remanded
with direction.
Jason E. Troia, of Jason Troia Law, for appellant.
Michael 	T. 	Hilgers, 	Attorney 	General, 	and 	Jacob 	M.
Waggoner for appellee.
Funke, 	C.J., 	Miller-Lerman, 	Cassel, 	Stacy, 	Papik,
Freudenberg, and Bergevin, JJ.
Cassel, J.
INTRODUCTION
After the State charged a 15-year-old male with a Class
II felony in district court, he moved to transfer the case to
juvenile court. The district court overruled the motion, but
the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, determining that
the lower court had abused its discretion. We granted further
review. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion,
the appellate court erred in concluding otherwise. We reverse,
and remand with direction.
BACKGROUND
For background, we start with a brief procedural history of
this case. Then, we discuss the evidence adduced at a hearing
on the transfer motion.

- 135 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
Procedural History
This case commenced with the State’s filing of an informa-
tion in district court charging Jeremiah T. with sexual assault
in the first degree, a Class II felony. Jeremiah moved to trans-
fer the case to juvenile court. 1 After conducting a hearing on
the motion to transfer, the district court overruled the motion.
Jeremiah appealed, pursuant to a statute permitting an inter-
locutory appeal. 2 The Court of Appeals released a memo-
randum opinion 3 reversing the district court’s decision and
remanding the cause with direction to sustain the motion to
transfer.
The State filed a petition for further review, which we
granted. 4 We expedited both the oral argument of the case and
the release of our decision.
Evidence on Transfer Motion
During the hearing on the motion to transfer, the dis-
trict court heard the live testimony of an expert witness and
received 14 exhibits. The exhibits were primarily documentary
exhibits but also included audio and video recordings. After
the hearing, the court received two additional exhibits.
The evidence established that on December 1, 2023, at a
high school in Omaha, Nebraska, L.S. reported that she was
“sexually assaulted within the school in the last 15 minutes.”
Video footage from the school showed 14-year-old L.S. in a
hallway with Jeremiah and G.G.—both age 15—at approxi-
mately 12:40 p.m. The three are then out of the camera’s view
until 12:50 p.m. At that time, L.S. came out of a stairwell, went
into a bathroom for approximately 2 minutes, then walked
to her locker. After that, L.S. reported the assault to school
officials.
1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1816 (Cum. Supp. 2024).
2 See § 29-1816(4).
3 State v. Jeremiah T., No. A-24-815, 2025 WL 1165671 (Neb. App. Apr. 22,
2025) (selected for posting to court website).
4 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 24-1107 (Reissue 2016).

- 136 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
A couple of hours later, L.S. sat for an interview at a child
advocacy center. When asked to explain what happened, L.S.
stated that she and Jeremiah had been texting and were going
to “‘meet up[,] cuz I knew him for a long long time now,’”
and were going to “‘hang out.’” L.S. and Jeremiah then went
into a room at the school “where people would go to chill out
and make TikToks so she believed they were just going to
‘chill, talk, and you know, not doing nothing important.’” L.S.
said that she
“went into this corner, and [Jeremiah] came up to me and
physically moved me out of the corner, made me go in
front of him, and then he like started bending me over,
and then started basically dry humping me . . . after that
he tried taking off my pants and I was like, ‘ah were [sic]
not doing this at school, and what are you doing? I don’t
want to do this’ . . . and then after that he was like, ‘this
is what you was talking about [don’t] be scared now.’”
L.S. responded that she “‘never said I wanted to do this.’”
L.S. stated that Jeremiah then
“forcibly like ben[t] me over and we started to get on the
floor, he basically made me get on the floor, and then he
put it in me . . . after that I told him to stop and he didn’t
listen, and I kept on telling him to stop and he didn’t lis-
ten . . . I tried to get up . . . I’d say I tried to get up like
five times, and he forcibly pinned me down on the floor
so I couldn’t get up until he was done.”
According to L.S., Jeremiah ejaculated on the back of her
pants. She said she “looked at him and was like, ‘dude are you
serious?’” L.S. walked out and then started crying.
The 	record 	contains 	Jeremiah’s 	interview 	with 	a 	law
enforcement officer. Jeremiah stated that he had known L.S.
for a long time and that she had sent him a text message
about “meeting up.” Jeremiah stated that when they met, L.S.
“started to talk freaky and gave him a hand job.” He thought
that L.S. said he raped her because he told her that “her hand
job was trash.” Jeremiah said that L.S. consented to sex and

- 137 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
that she never told him to stop. He said L.S. did not initially
want to “do it at school but he told her they wouldn’t get
caught.” Jeremiah later said that “he stopped after [L.S.] said
stop one and a half times.” He stated that he was “‘not trying
to make this weird,’” but he was a teenager who “‘watch[ed]
porn,’” and “‘in the porn they be like, “oh stop, stop,” . . . and
I didn’t know she was meaning it in that way,’” so when L.S.
said “‘I have, you a girlfriend . . . and then she was like stop
. . . I didn’t realize too till I was done.’”
The 	record 	also 	contains 	information 	regarding 	G.G.’s
involvement. According to a summary of G.G.’s interview
contained in a supplemental police report, G.G. stated that
he could see L.S. and Jeremiah the entire time and that noth-
ing sexual occurred. When asked why he did not help L.S.,
G.G. said “‘she never asked me for help.’” Unprompted, G.G.
stated that “‘he told me she agreed on it, that she wanted to
do it.’” G.G. explained that Jeremiah told him that after it had
happened. G.G. said that he did not hear anything because
he was wearing “Airpods” and that he did not see anything
because “he kept walking up to the door to make sure no one
was coming in.” But he also stated that he heard “‘kissing.’”
L.S. stated that G.G. was “‘there for the whole time, he was
just sitting on the stairs and he heard me say “stop” and “I
didn’t wanna do this,” and he didn’t help me . . . he was just
standing there.’” L.S. told the interviewer that she could see
G.G. “when this was happening” but that he “was just on his
phone.” According to L.S., she thought that G.G. knew “it”
was going to happen, because Jeremiah “told [G.G.] some-
thing, he laughed, and then it happened after that.”
Jeremiah said that G.G. was in the room when the incident
happened, that G.G. knew what was happening, and that G.G.
“heard it all.” According to Jeremiah, G.G. was sitting on the
stairs making sure that no one entered the room. Jeremiah
stated that he told G.G. that L.S. wanted to go in the room
and asked G.G. to “‘just watch the doors to make sure no one
comes in.’”

- 138 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
The court received an affidavit of a juvenile court coordina-
tor with the public defender’s office. She opined that the sepa-
rate juvenile court had services available to Jeremiah, including
outpatient treatment specific to sexual offenders, a therapeu-
tic group home for youth that sexually offend, a psychiatric
residential treatment facility for youth that sexually offend, or
commitment to a youth rehabilitation and treatment center.
The court also received a status report from the Douglas
County Youth Center dated September 17, 2024. It showed
that Jeremiah had one major rule violation, which was fight-
ing on May 31. The report stated that Jeremiah “has become a
role model to his peers on the unit,” that he was “respectful to
staff and always willing to help around the unit,” and that his
mother consistently visited him.
Dr. Kari Perez, a clinical and forensic psychologist, assessed
Jeremiah’s risk for reoffending and considered his risk to the
community, his amenability to treatment, and his level of
sophistication and maturity as it relates to transfer. In reaching
her conclusions, Perez relied on police reports, court docu-
ments, video recordings, interviews with Jeremiah and with
his mother, and psychological testing and forensic assessments.
Perez spent about 5 hours interviewing Jeremiah. He was
age 15 when Perez interviewed him, but he turned 16 years
old prior to the hearing. Perez testified that Jeremiah was
generally 	cooperative 	and 	forthcoming 	with 	information.
However, he tried “to present himself in a very positive light,”
which “became a concern later in the assessment process that
was addressed.”
Perez spent approximately 2 hours performing psychological
testing on Jeremiah. The tests she administered included the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents
(MMPI), the Personality Assessment Inventory for Adolescents
(PAI), and the “Conners 4.” She also administered forensic
tests—the Protective + Risk Observations For Eliminating
Sexual Offense Recidivism (PROFESOR) and the Structured
Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY).

- 139 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
From the MMPI, Perez learned that Jeremiah “was report-
ing a lot more virtuous types of behaviors than is typical of
somebody his age.” That affected the validity of the test, so
Perez administered the PAI “to try to get more information.”
Jeremiah’s results on that assessment were considered to be
valid. The only “possible issue” on the PAI was that Jeremiah
showed “a little less treatment motivation than some of the
youth who take the test who aren’t engaging in treatment.”
The purpose of the PROFESOR test is to identify the inten-
sity of the treatment needed. Perez testified that Jeremiah’s
treatment intensity was “low to moderate” because the results
showed more protective factors than risk factors. She explained
that “moderate” treatment intensity might mean something
like a therapeutic group home and “low” treatment intensity
would be “maybe intensive outpatient” therapy. Risk factors
identified were “Sexual Beliefs and Attitudes,” “Knowledge
of Consequences of Sexual Offending,” and “Strategies to
Prevent Sexual Offending.”
The violent offense risk assessment—SAVRY—provides an
estimate of future violence risk. Jeremiah’s SAVRY score
was low.
Perez testified that the rate of sexual reoffending in adoles-
cents is between 2.5 and 5 percent. She elaborated, “So, if you
make a risk prediction with an adolescent and you say that they
are low, about 95 percent of the time, you will be correct.”
Perez testified that Jeremiah comes from a supportive fam-
ily environment. His mother is “very engaged” and has main-
tained a close relationship with Jeremiah. Perez testified that
Jeremiah’s mother described him as “a good kid that didn’t get
into trouble at home much.”
When Jeremiah was in approximately the ninth grade, he
was affected by antisocial behaviors when an older cousin
moved into their apartment and engaged in activities such
as stealing. Jeremiah said that he did not participate in such
activities, because his mother would “kill him” if he did.

- 140 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
Perez testified that when Jeremiah was in the eighth grade,
he was identified as having a learning disability in written
expression and mathematics. Jeremiah was involved in some
disruptions in school, but the school opined that they were
due to academic challenges rather than significant behavioral
concerns.
With regard to Jeremiah’s medical history, Perez testified
that there was nothing of significance. Jeremiah did not have
a history of trauma or abuse. Nor did he have any psychiatric
history.
Perez testified that Jeremiah had no prior juvenile court
cases, prior arrests, or prior interaction with the police. He
reported experimenting with marijuana on one occasion and
stated that he “didn’t really like it.”
As for what led to the criminal offense, Perez identified two
factors: impulse control and misunderstanding what the victim
was saying. She further explained that Jeremiah watched por-
nography which “had shown women who were saying no or
stop, and — but it was continuing. And so, he picked up from
that that some women . . . enjoy that or that that’s okay.”
Perez expressed familiarity with Dr. Colleen Conoley and
Conoley’s research in general. Perez had read Conoley’s 2014
deposition testimony from a different case. According to that
research, the frontal cortex of an adolescent’s brain, which
is responsible for making good decisions and delaying grati-
fication, is underdeveloped and continuing to develop until
approximately age 25.
Perez opined that Jeremiah was of average maturity for his
age. As for cognitive maturity, he displayed some immaturity
by not always weighing the consequences before making deci-
sions. Perez did not find anything particularly problematic
regarding his maturity. With regard to the transfer evaluation,
Perez looked at whether Jeremiah was using that maturity to
advance criminal objectives and did not find that he was.
Perez believed that Jeremiah was amenable to treatment.
She testified that Jeremiah was asserting that he was innocent,

- 141 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
so that would “provide some complications.” She spoke about
different interventions that would help Jeremiah and stated
that those services are available in juvenile court. Perez testi-
fied that the treatment she recommended could be completed
before Jeremiah turned 19 years old. She did not believe he
created a risk to the community.
Perez also touched on the treatment options if the case
remained in adult court and Jeremiah were sent to prison. The
options included bibliotherapy, outpatient group therapy, and
residential inpatient treatment. Perez believed that Jeremiah
would likely get a recommendation for bibliotherapy or for no
treatment. Thus, if Jeremiah went to prison, there is a chance
he would not be treated. And with respect to services available,
Perez testified, “I’m not sure that it would be as beneficial as
what he would receive if he was in the juvenile system.”
Following the hearing, the court received an exhibit cre-
ated by a specialized probation officer at the State’s request.
It described services provided to clients on adult probation
and what those services may look like for a juvenile on adult
probation. The probation officer stated, “Regarding services
for juveniles on adult probation, I am going to focus on those
ages 16 and 17 and why this programming may not be appro-
priate for juveniles.” The probation officer explained that a
juvenile can attend the programs, but “it becomes a challenge”
when the juvenile does not have a support system. Juveniles
who participated in the programming reported “feel[ing] out
of place and struggl[ing] to connect with others in the group.”
The officer elaborated, “Juveniles are often still in school and
trying to juggle the demands of their adult probation order,
work, and manage peer pressure.” Although the officer recog-
nized that “Nebraska Probation is ahead of many states when
it comes to working with juveniles in the adult court system
and offers excellent programming and services,” the officer
stated: “[I]f a youth can reasonably remain in the juvenile
court and on juvenile probation they should. The program-
ming offered by Juvenile Probation is designed for such.”

- 142 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
The district court’s findings and the Court of Appeals’ rea-
soning will be discussed in the analysis section.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
The State assigns that the Court of Appeals erred in con-
cluding that the district court abused its discretion in denying
Jeremiah’s motion to transfer his case to the juvenile court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] An appellate court reviews a trial court’s denial of
a motion to transfer a pending criminal proceeding to the
juvenile court for an abuse of discretion. 5 If further review
is granted, the Nebraska Supreme Court will review only the
errors assigned in the petition for further review and discussed
in the supporting memorandum brief. 6
ANALYSIS
Governing Law
Because Jeremiah was 15 years old when he allegedly com-
mitted an offense punishable as a Class II felony, the county
court or district court had concurrent original jurisdiction with
the juvenile court. 7 Thus, the action could be initiated either
in county or district court or in juvenile court. The law also
allows transfer of actions filed in an adult court to a juvenile
court. It also bears noting that because Jeremiah was under
age 18 when he allegedly committed the crime, Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 29-2204(5) (Cum. Supp. 2024) provides the district court
with the same dispositional options as a juvenile court.
Overlapping statutes specify factors to be considered regard-
ing initial forum selection and transfer decisions. One sets
forth criteria that a prosecuting attorney must consider when
5 See State v. Aldana Cardenas, 314 Neb. 544, 990 N.W.2d 915 (2023).
6 See, Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-102(G) (rev. 2022); Corcoran v. Lovercheck,
256 Neb. 936, 594 N.W.2d 615 (1999).
7 See § 29-1816(1)(a)(ii) and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-246.01(3)(a)(iii) (Cum.
Supp. 2024).

- 143 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
“making the determination whether to file a criminal charge”
in county court or district court or to “file a juvenile court
petition.” 8 A transfer provision requires a court making a trans-
fer determination to consider those factors. 9
The statutory criteria are as follows:
(a) The type of treatment such juvenile would most likely
be amenable to; (b) whether there is evidence that the
alleged offense included violence; (c) the motivation for
the commission of the offense; (d) the age of the juvenile
and the ages and circumstances of any others involved
in the offense; (e) the previous history of the juvenile,
including whether he or she had been convicted of any
previous offenses or adjudicated in juvenile court; (f) the
best interests of the juvenile; (g) consideration of public
safety; (h) consideration of the juvenile’s ability to appre-
ciate the nature and seriousness of his or her conduct; (i)
whether the best interests of the juvenile and the security
of the public may require that the juvenile continue in
secure detention or under supervision for a period extend-
ing beyond his or her minority and, if so, the available
alternatives best suited to this purpose; (j) whether the
victim or juvenile agree to participate in restorative jus-
tice; (k) whether there is a juvenile pretrial diversion
program established pursuant to sections 43-260.02 to
43-260.07; (l) whether the juvenile has been convicted
of or has acknowledged unauthorized use or possession
of a firearm; (m) whether a juvenile court order has been
issued for the juvenile pursuant to section 43-2,106.03;
(n) whether the juvenile is a criminal street gang member;
and (o) such other matters as the parties deem relevant to
aid in the decision. 10
8 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-276(1) (Cum. Supp. 2024).
9 See id. See, also, § 29-1816(3)(a).
10 § 43-276(1).

- 144 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
The transfer statute expresses both a preference in favor of
transfer and the basis for not doing so. “After considering all
the evidence and reasons presented by both parties, the case
shall be transferred to juvenile court unless a sound basis
exists for retaining the case in county court or district court.” 11
[3] Our case law sets forth a burden of proof. In a motion to
transfer to juvenile court, the burden of proving a sound basis
for retaining jurisdiction in county court or district court lies
with the State. 12
[4,5] We have also explained the relationship between the
evidence and the appellate standard of review, and the balanc-
ing test to be applied by the adult court. When a district court’s
basis for retaining jurisdiction over a juvenile is supported by
appropriate evidence, it cannot be said that the court abused its
discretion in refusing to transfer the case to juvenile court. 13
In order to retain proceedings in criminal court, the court
need not resolve every statutory factor against the juvenile,
and there are no weighted factors and no prescribed method
by which more or less weight is assigned to a specific factor.
It is a balancing test by which public protection and societal
security are weighed against the practical and nonproblemati-
cal rehabilitation of the juvenile. 14
[6] Further, with regard to the appellate standard of review,
a review for an abuse of discretion differs from a review de
novo on the record. A judicial abuse of discretion exists if
the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable,
unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and deny-
ing just results in matters submitted for disposition. 15 In con-
trast, in a review de novo on the record, an appellate court is
11 § 29-1816(3)(a).
12 State v. Aldana Cardenas, supra note 5.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Backhaus v. Backhaus, 318 Neb. 891, 20 N.W.3d 81 (2025); State v. Tyler
P., 299 Neb. 959, 911 N.W.2d 260 (2018).

- 145 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
required to make independent factual determinations based
upon the record, and the court reaches its own independent
conclusions with respect to the matters at issue. 16 Here, the
Court of Appeals’ review was limited to an examination for
abuse of discretion.
[7,8] We are also mindful that as the trier of fact, the district
court is not required to take the opinions of experts as binding
upon it. 17 Testimony of expert witnesses is not treated any dif-
ferently in the factfinding process than that of witnesses gener-
ally when it comes to determining the weight and credibility
of the testimony. 18
District Court’s Findings
The district court overruled Jeremiah’s motion to transfer
the case to juvenile court. Its order contained the following
description of the assault:
L.S. reports that she and [Jeremiah] were in a room
together and [Jeremiah] became aggressive. She indi-
cates that a friend of [Jeremiah], G.G.[,] was positioned
as a look out to protect the assault from interruption.
[Jeremiah] physically forced her to the ground and forced
his penis into her vagina and ejaculated. She reported
she attempted to scream for the other student with-
out response and that she told [Jeremiah] to stop. She
reported that she attempted to get up or away, however,
[Jeremiah] forcefully restrained her and pulled her pants
down to assault her.
The district court discussed the evidence relative to the
transfer factors in § 43-276. With regard to the type of treat-
ment to which Jeremiah would most likely be amenable,
the court found that there was “a significant issue as to
whether [Jeremiah] can successfully complete appropriate
16 Backhaus v. Backhaus, supra note 15.
17 See State v. Nevels, 235 Neb. 39, 453 N.W.2d 579 (1990).
18 In re Interest of T.W., 314 Neb. 475, 991 N.W.2d 280 (2023).

- 146 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
rehabilitative treatment in the juvenile court, within the juris-
dictional limited time frame of the juvenile court.” In con-
sideration of whether the offense included violence, the court
stated that it “involved significant aggression,” including
“physical domination, control and violence.”
The court included a lengthy discussion regarding the pub-
lic safety factor of § 43-276. The court determined that
Jeremiah was amenable to treatment provided in juvenile court
and adult court. It noted that Jeremiah did not have a history
of violent behavior or interaction with law enforcement. The
court stated, “The circumstances suggest the sexual assault
had a degree of planning and was not merely impulsive.” The
court reasoned:
The juvenile court would have several years to work
with 	[Jeremiah] 	should 	he 	be 	transferred. 	However,
[Jeremiah] will still have the biological and neurological
issues that interfere with judgment and impulse control
upon leaving the juvenile court jurisdiction at 19.
Although the length of time for treatment and reha-
bilitation in juvenile court is several years, the nature and
depravity of the offense is concerning. The Court can-
not conclude that there is sufficient time to ensure that
[Jeremiah] will be of little or no risk for violent behavior
if transferred to juvenile court.
In connection with considering Jeremiah’s best interests and
the security of the public, the court found that the security of
the public required that the case remain in adult court.
The court expressed concern about whether treatment, ther-
apy, and rehabilitation could be accomplished in a manner
protecting public safety by the time Jeremiah reached the
age of majority. The court stated, “Based upon the nature of
the charged crime and the degree of violence and personal
control of the victim involved[,] this Court cannot conclude
with confidence that [Jeremiah] will not need to be in a secure
detention facility or under supervision past his minority.” The
court found that Jeremiah would likely need a longer period

- 147 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
of supervision or secure detention than that afforded through
the juvenile court. Accordingly, it overruled the transfer motion.
Court of Appeals’ Reasoning
Upon Jeremiah’s appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the
district court’s decision and remanded the cause with direc-
tions to sustain the motion to transfer. 19 After a comprehen-
sive review of the evidence, the Court of Appeals determined
that the State did not meet its burden of proving a sound basis
for retention and that the district court therefore abused its
discretion by denying the transfer to juvenile court.
The Court of Appeals found no support in the record for the
district court’s statements that Jeremiah “‘was attempting to
mimic pornography he had seen’” and that L.S. “‘attempted
to scream for the other student.’” 20 The Court of Appeals
also questioned the district court’s conclusion that Jeremiah
recruited G.G. to be a lookout to accomplish a sexual assault,
stating that “the evidence could also support that G.G. served
as a ‘look out’ to ensure privacy rather than to conceal crimi-
nal intentions.” 21
The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court
abused its discretion in denying Jeremiah’s request to trans-
fer his case to the juvenile court. The appellate court stated
that “[w]hen weighing public protection and societal security
against Jeremiah’s ability to successfully achieve rehabilita-
tion in a practical and nonproblematical manner while under
the age of 19, . . . the evidence in this record favors the
latter.” 22 The Court of Appeals further stated that “the State
offered no expert or other testimony regarding public protec-
tion and societal security being a significant concern in this
case, nor did it adduce evidence to indicate that Jeremiah
19 See State v. Jeremiah T., supra note 3.
20 Id. at *11.
21 Id. at *12.
22 Id. at *13.

- 148 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
could not be successfully rehabilitated while under the juve-
nile court’s jurisdiction.” 23 The Court of Appeals noted that
numerous options for services and treatments were available
in the juvenile court and stated that the evidence supported
that Jeremiah would be cooperative in that process.
State’s Argument and
Jeremiah’s Response
In the State’s petition for further review, it contends that the
Court of Appeals erred in two respects. First, the State argues
that the Court of Appeals articulated, but failed to follow,
the standard of review. Instead, the State contends, the Court
of Appeals reweighed public protection and societal security
against Jeremiah’s ability to successfully achieve rehabilita-
tion. The State observes that the abuse of discretion standard
is highly deferential, and it asserts that the Court of Appeals
failed to accord the district court’s findings that deference.
Second, the State argues that the Court of Appeals erred in
finding that parts of the district court’s order were unsupported
by the record. It contends that the appellate court’s opinion
omitted relevant context from the district court’s order. It fur-
ther argues that the district court’s findings were supported by
the record with only one exception: the State concedes that
the district court inaccurately stated that L.S. “reported she
attempted to scream.” That minor inaccuracy, the State asserts,
did not rise to an abuse of discretion.
Jeremiah’s response contends that the Court of Appeals did
not disregard the standard of review, but, rather, found error
with a number of the district court’s findings. Specifically,
Jeremiah argues that the district court erred in finding that he
(1) planned a sexual assault, (2) made G.G. aware the encoun-
ter was going to be a sexual assault, (3) recruited G.G. to be
a lookout to accomplish a sexual assault, and (4) reenacted
23 Id.

- 149 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
a pornographic video or admitted to reenacting the same.
Jeremiah also asserts that the district court erred in ignoring
the treatment timeline contemplated by Jeremiah’s expert.
Discussion
The State’s argument relies upon an accurate premise: If
the Court of Appeals substitutes its judgment regarding the
weight of the evidence, it fails to apply an abuse of discretion
standard of review.
The Court of Appeals repeatedly employed reweighing lan-
guage. The court stated that “our review of the record sug-
gests otherwise.” 24 Similarly, it said that “evidence received
from Jeremiah, which was not rebutted by the State, clearly
favored having this low-risk youth receive services designed
especially for juvenile offenders through the juvenile court.” 25
The appellate court reasoned that “[w]hile [the district court’s
construction] is a possibility, there was also another possible
explanation presented by the evidence.” 26 In the same vein, the
appellate court acknowledged that “the evidence could have
supported the [district] court’s conclusion,” but then stated
that “the evidence could also support” a different conclu-
sion. 27 The appellate court’s penultimate conclusion explicitly
engages in reweighing: “When weighing public protection
and societal security against Jeremiah’s ability to successfully
achieve rehabilitation in a practical and nonproblematical
manner while under the age of 19, . . . the evidence in this
record favors the latter.” 28
This reweighing extended to the appellate court’s emphasis
on the opinions of Jeremiah’s expert witness—specifically,
24 Id. at *10.
25 Id. at *11.
26 Id. at *12.
27 Id.
28 Id. at *13.

- 150 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
the conclusion that there was “sufficient time” for Jeremiah
to be “rehabilitated before age 19.” 29 But the district court
was not required to accept Jeremiah’s expert’s opinions. The
appellate court erred in implicitly holding otherwise.
Jeremiah 	attacks 	the 	district 	court’s 	conclusion 	in 	five
respects. We consider each one separately, but find none to
be persuasive.
First, he argues that the district court erred in finding that
Jeremiah “planned a sexual assault.” 30 But the district court’s
finding was more nuanced. The court stated, “The circum-
stances suggest the sexual assault had a degree of planning
and was not merely impulsive.” Similarly, it said, “There
is also evidence in the record that suggests [Jeremiah] did
understand what he had done and that his behaviors were
not solely impulsive, but were planned.” The appellate court
seemed to acknowledge that “possibility.” 31 If it is a possible
interpretation of the evidence, we cannot say that it is an abuse
of discretion.
[9] Second, according to Jeremiah, the district court found
that he “made G.G. aware the encounter was going to be a
sexual assault.” 32 But the district court actually stated that
L.S. “indicate[d] that . . . G.G. was positioned as a look out
[sic] to protect the assault from interruption.” In the docu-
mentary evidence, L.S. stated that G.G. was “‘there for the
whole time, he was just sitting on the stairs and he heard me
say “stop” and “I didn’t wanna do this,” and he didn’t help
me . . . he was just standing there.’” L.S. told the interviewer
that she could see G.G. “when this was happening” but that
he “was just on his phone.” This evidence circumstantially
supported the district court’s finding. Circumstantial evidence
29 Id. at *11.
30 Brief for appellant in response to petition for further review at 1.
31 State v. Jeremiah T., supra note 3, 2025 WL 1165671 at *12.
32 Brief for appellant in response to petition for further review at 1.

- 151 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
is not inherently less probative than direct evidence, and
a fact proved by circumstantial evidence is nonetheless a
proven fact. 33
Jeremiah claims the lower court found that he “recruited
G.G. to be a lookout to accomplish a sexual assault.” 34 While
the appellate court quoted this language, it accurately cited the
source of the quotation as Jeremiah’s brief. Jeremiah’s argu-
ment inaccurately attributes those words to the district court.
Next, Jeremiah pointed to a district court finding. The dis-
trict court said, “[Jeremiah] admits he was reenacting a porno-
graphic video.” The court referred to Jeremiah as “attempting
to mimic pornography he had seen.” But the court did so in the
context of Jeremiah’s explanation that he “watch[ed] porn,”
and “‘in the porn they be like, “oh stop, stop,” . . . and [he]
didn’t know she was meaning it in that way.’” Jeremiah’s
expert referred to the pornography explanation and stated that
Jeremiah “picked up from that that some women . . . enjoy
that or that that’s okay.” Unlike the appellate court, we view
the district court’s use of the verbs “mimic” or “reenact[]” as
accurate paraphrasing of Jeremiah’s expert’s characterization
that Jeremiah “picked up” that idea from the pornography.
Finally, Jeremiah’s argument regarding a treatment time-
line largely relied on his expert’s testimony. The district court
was free to reject that evidence. The appellate court was not
empowered to second-guess the district court’s assessment
of it.
[10] Abuse of discretion is a highly deferential standard of
review. 35 It is the standard applicable to reviewing a criminal
sentence, where we have explained that “[i]t is not the func-
tion of an appellate court to conduct a de novo review of
the record to determine whether a sentence is appropriate”
33 Backhaus v. Backhaus, supra note 15.
34 Brief for appellant in response to petition for further review at 1.
35 State v. Tyler P., supra note 15.

- 152 -
Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
319 Nebraska Reports
STATE v. JEREMIAH T.
Cite as 319 Neb. 133
and that “[t]he standard is not what sentence we would have
imposed.” 36 Likewise, in reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a
transfer motion, an appellate court’s function is not to review
the record de novo to determine whether we think the case
should be transferred. Here, the Court of Appeals articulated
reasons why it would have transferred the matter to juvenile
court. But an appellate court’s review is limited to determin-
ing whether the trial court’s reasons and rulings are clearly
untenable. To be “untenable” is to be “incapable of being
defended.” 37 Neither the district court’s factual findings nor
its ultimate refusal to transfer the matter to the juvenile court
was clearly untenable. Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ con-
clusion, the district court articulated a sound basis for retain-
ing jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not abuse its discretion in overrul-
ing Jeremiah’s motion to transfer the case to the juvenile
court, and the Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise.
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals
and remand the cause with direction to affirm the order of the
district court.
Reversed and remanded with direction.
36 State v. Gibson, 302 Neb. 833, 843, 925 N.W.2d 678, 685 (2019).
37 Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language
1567 (1989).