Background
On October 23, 2024, Kevin Tilkins and his girlfriend Carrie Kenniston, who had been in a seven-year relationship and lived together with their children, engaged in a violent altercation. After Kenniston returned home from work around 11 p.m., Tilkins demanded his car keys. When Kenniston refused, Tilkins placed her in a headlock or choke hold. Kenniston’s two older children from a prior relationship, Katherine (16) and Noah (13), heard the commotion.
The confrontation escalated when Tilkins obtained the keys and attempted to leave with the vehicle. Kenniston got in the car with him. During the drive, Tilkins allegedly told Kenniston he would beat her up and that he would not feel bad if he killed her. Upon returning home, when Kenniston refused to exit the vehicle, Tilkins punched her arm six times. Kenniston subsequently spent eight hours in the hospital undergoing CAT scans and X-rays, reporting neck injuries, bruising, and pain lasting several days.
Tilkins was charged with assault by strangulation or suffocation (a Class IIIA felony), third degree domestic assault, and two counts of child abuse. He rejected a plea offer and proceeded to trial. At trial, Tilkins testified that he used a “Mandt restraint,” a non-harmful restraint technique, and claimed that Kenniston’s own actions caused pressure to her neck, which he immediately released. The jury convicted him on all counts after 38 minutes of deliberation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions, finding sufficient evidence under Nebraska law. For assault by strangulation, the court held that Kenniston’s testimony that she could not breathe and lost consciousness, combined with the jury’s credibility determinations, supported the conviction. The court rejected Tilkins’ conflicting narrative as an attempt to have the appellate court reweigh evidence—a function reserved for the jury. The court noted that intent may be inferred from the defendant’s words, acts, and surrounding circumstances.
For third degree domestic assault, the court found the evidence overwhelming: Tilkins and Kenniston were in a seven-year intimate relationship, Tilkins placed her in a choke hold causing her to lose consciousness, and he punched her arm multiple times, causing bruises. For the two child abuse charges, the court held that Nebraska’s child abuse statute requires only that a child’s physical or mental health be “endangered”—not that actual injury occur. Because Katherine and Noah witnessed Tilkins applying a choke hold to their mother, felt upset and confused, and Katherine testified she feared her younger siblings might intervene and get hurt, the endangerment element was satisfied.
On sentencing, the court upheld Tilkins’ 18-month prison term plus 18 months post-release supervision for assault by strangulation, plus concurrent one-year sentences for the other charges. The court noted that a September 2025 statutory amendment reduced minimum penalties for Class IIIA felonies, but Tilkins’ sentence remained within the new range. The court found sentencing proper based on Tilkins’ medium-high to high risk of reoffending, his refusal to accept responsibility (he blamed law enforcement and the prosecutor), his criminal history showing escalation, and the violent nature of the offenses. The court properly denied probation based on his attitude and risk profile.
Key Takeaways
- Assault by strangulation convictions can rest solely on victim testimony describing inability to breathe and loss of consciousness; no forensic or medical evidence is required when a jury credits the victim’s account over the defendant’s competing narrative.
- Nebraska child abuse law does not require proof of actual injury to a child; endangerment of a child’s physical or mental health—including exposure to domestic violence and reasonable fear of harm—is sufficient, even without direct contact between defendant and child.
- A defendant’s refusal to accept responsibility for crimes and hostile attitude toward law enforcement and the justice system are legitimate sentencing factors supporting incarceration over probation.
- Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel raised on direct appeal must be specific and identified with particularity; vague or conclusory allegations fail and are procedurally barred in any later proceeding.
- When a criminal statute is amended between conviction and final judgment on appeal (before the mandate issues), a defendant receives the benefit of the lesser sentencing range under the Randolph doctrine.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Nebraska’s robust approach to domestic violence prosecution. By affirming that children’s mere witnessing of parental strangulation constitutes child abuse without requiring physical harm, the court recognizes the psychological trauma of exposure to intimate partner violence. The decision also signals that sentencing courts may rely heavily on a defendant’s courtroom behavior and statements—particularly refusal to accept responsibility—when choosing between incarceration and probation.
For defendants, the case underscores the importance of preserving claims on direct appeal with specificity. Tilkins’ vague assertion that trial counsel was ineffective “in presentation of the case” was dismissed without consideration, permanently barring him from raising those issues later. The opinion also demonstrates that trial testimony from intimate partners and child witnesses, when credited by a jury, provides a sufficient foundation for serious felony convictions even when the defendant offers a materially different account.