Case Name: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Robert L. Roth, appellant
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1984-04-20
Citations: 217 Neb. 80
Docket Number: No. 83-648
Parties: State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Robert L. Roth, appellant.
Judges: Krivosha, C.J., White, and Caporale, JJ., and McCown and Brodkey, JJ., Retired.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 217
Pages: 80–80

Head Matter:
State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Robert L. Roth, appellant.
348 N.W.2d 125
Filed April 20, 1984.
No. 83-648.
Hal W. Anderson of Berry, Anderson, Creager & Wittstruck, for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Attorney General, and Dale A. Comer, for appellee.
Krivosha, C.J., White, and Caporale, JJ., and McCown and Brodkey, JJ., Retired.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendant-appellant, Robert L. Roth, appeals from his conviction on a charge of possessing cocaine with intent to deliver.
The relevant facts are set forth in State v. Roth, 213 Neb. 900, 331 N.W.2d 819 (1983), Roth I, a single-judge opinion which determined that the district court erred in suppressing certain physical evidence. Thereafter, defendant proceeded to trial on stipulated facts, preserving the question as to whether the physical evidence admitted by the district court into evidence pursuant to Roth I should in fact have been suppressed.
We adopt the reasoning and rationale set forth in Roth I, hold that the physical evidence should not have been suppressed, and affirm.
Affirmed.