## Facts

- Peter M. Sinica was the father of a nine-year-old child (Sinica, Jr.).
- A teacher noticed that Sinica, Jr. came to school with a cut on his face.
- The child told the teacher he had disobeyed his father’s order to bring home notes from his teachers showing he had completed schoolwork before a family vacation.
- The child reported that, as punishment, Sinica struck him in the face and beat him with a belt on his buttocks and back.
- Police were called, and the child was treated at a hospital.
- Photographs and other evidence showed severe bruising: the child’s buttocks were deeply discolored over the entire backside, with strap and bruise marks on the back and shoulders.
- The State charged Sinica under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-707(1)(b) (Cum. Supp. 1984) with knowingly or intentionally causing or permitting a minor child “to be cruelly punished.”
- After Sinica was bound over to district court, he moved to quash the information, arguing the statute was unconstitutional because “cruelly punished” was vague and the statute was overbroad as it might reach ordinary parental discipline.
- The district court sustained the motion to quash, finding the statute unconstitutionally vague.
- The State sought and obtained leave to appeal by exception under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2315.01 (Cum. Supp. 1984).

## Issues

1. Whether Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-707(1)(b), criminalizing knowingly or intentionally causing or permitting a child to be “cruelly punished,” is facially overbroad because it interferes with constitutionally protected parental discipline.
2. Whether the phrase “cruelly punished” is unconstitutionally vague, and whether a defendant whose alleged conduct is clearly covered by the statute has standing to raise a vagueness challenge.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court sustained the State’s exception and reversed the order quashing the information.
- The court held § 28-707(1)(b) was not facially overbroad; it targets child abuse, not constitutionally protected conduct.
- The court stated that “cruelly punished” has a widely accepted legal meaning that can be understood as distinct from reasonable parental discipline.
- The court concluded Sinica lacked standing to attack the statute as vague because the alleged conduct fell clearly within what the statute forbids, so he could not rely on hypothetical borderline applications.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute is challenged on overbreadth and vagueness grounds, the court first asks whether the law reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.
- Parents have a protected liberty interest in the care and management of their children, but that interest does not include a right to abuse a child; child abuse is not constitutionally protected activity.
- Courts presume the Legislature intended a sensible result and interpret statutes, when fairly possible, to be consistent with constitutional limits.
- A law is void for vagueness only if it fails to give fair notice of what conduct is prohibited or is so standardless that it invites arbitrary enforcement.
- The statutory phrase “cruelly punished” is given its accepted legal meaning and is understood to refer to abusive punishment, not reasonable discipline.
- A defendant generally lacks standing to challenge a statute as vague if the defendant’s own conduct is clearly prohibited; such a defendant cannot complain about uncertainty as applied to others.

## Conclusion

State v. Sinica holds that Nebraska’s child-abuse statute prohibiting a child from being “cruelly punished” is constitutional on its face and is not invalid for overbreadth, and it further holds that a defendant whose alleged conduct is plainly covered by the statute lacks standing to invalidate it as vague based on hypothetical close cases; the prosecution therefore could proceed.


State v. Sinica, 372 N.W.2d 445 (1985)