Opinion ID: 6349127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: Insufficient Evidence In his first assignment of error, Worthman argues that the district court erred in finding sufficient evidence to support a verdict that Worthman was guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. According to Worthman, the evidence was insufficient regarding the element of intent because Lujan determined how much cocaine to use in the controlled delivery and because Worthman never indicated that he wanted to purchase such a large amount. Instead, Worthman asked “what am I getting?” which Worthman argues is indicative of a narcotics user but not indicative of a narcotics distributor. Worthman emphasizes that the only eyewitness who claims to have seen him distribute cocaine to others was Lujan, who has multiple credibility problems. Accordingly, Worthman contends that there is no credible evidence showing that he ever did or intended to distribute narcotics to another. 1 State v. Kofoed, 283 Neb. 767, 817 N.W.2d 225 (2012). 2 Id. 3 State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749, 696 N.W.2d 420 (2005). 4 Id.; State v. King, 269 Neb. 326, 693 N.W.2d 250 (2005), overruled on other grounds, State v. Vann, 306 Neb. 91, 944 N.W.2d 503 (2020). - 291 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. WORTHMAN Cite as 311 Neb. 284 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support Worthman’s conviction, the relevant question for this court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 5 We will not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. 6 Worthman admits that “Soucie opined that [Worthman] went through a lot of cocaine in six months” and that Soucie stated that “‘my opinion is that this is more than personal use.’” 7 Worthman also acknowledges that such testimony “can support a conviction,” but argues that this testimony “does not mean that it must result in a conviction.” 8 But this court is not tasked with determining whether the conviction must have or should have occurred, as such a finding would be dependent on this court’s reweighing the evidence. Instead, we look for whether the evidence presented could have supported a conviction when viewed and construed most favorably to the State. Evidence presented at trial showed that the substance used in the controlled delivery was cocaine in the requisite amount. The audio recording from the delivery indicates that Worthman possessed the cocaine after Lujan handed Worthman the bag of cocaine in his vehicle. [5] As for intent, we have stated repeatedly that evidence of the quantity of a controlled substance possessed, combined with expert testimony that such quantity indicates an intent to deliver, can be sufficient for a jury to infer an intent to deliver. 9 Here, evidence in the form of text messages showed that Worthman had previously received large amounts of 5 See State v. Kofoed, supra note 1. 6 Id. Accord State v. Utter, 263 Neb. 632, 641 N.W.2d 624 (2002). 7 Brief for appellee at 17. 8 Id. 9 State v. Utter, supra note 6. - 292 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. WORTHMAN Cite as 311 Neb. 284 cocaine from Lujan. Soucie testified that such a large amount of cocaine was “a lot of cocaine” for one user, “even a heavy addict,” and that if one user tried to consume that amount of cocaine, the user would “probably have a heart attack.” Soucie also characterized the amount as “a lot of cocaine for someone who’s selling it to have at one time, much less use. It’s unheard of, I guess, in my training and experience.” While this evidence is circumstantial, it supports a finding that Worthman intended to distribute, deliver, or dispense the cocaine in his possession. Based on the evidence presented at trial, and in viewing such evidence in a light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the evidence was not insufficient to support Worthman’s conviction, and this assignment of error is without merit. Motion for New Trial In his second assignment of error, Worthman assigns that the district court abused its discretion in denying Worthman’s motion for new trial, based on evidence that Worthman could not have discovered before trial. This evidence included four additional felony charges and misdemeanors against Lujan, each of which arose within the 3 months between the close of evidence and the district court’s determination of guilt, as well as a plea agreement offered to Lujan. Under the plea agreement, most of the charges brought against Lujan within this 3-month period were dismissed in favor of Lujan’s agreeing to pay restitution. Worthman argues that as a result of the additional felony and misdemeanor charges, Lujan was motivated to lie; if Lujan was able to help convict Worthman, Lujan could potentially gain leniency from the State regarding his own criminal charges. Further, Worthman argues that the State’s tolerance of Lujan’s repeated breaches of the law and breaches of the cooperation agreement indicates that some other agreement—whether it - 293 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. WORTHMAN Cite as 311 Neb. 284 be oral or written, formal or informal—must be in place in order to preserve Lujan’s availability as a witness against Worthman. Since such agreement was not disclosed to Worthman prior to trial, and because Worthman was not notified about the additional charges against Lujan, Worthman argues that he is entitled to a new trial. [6] We have previously held that to warrant a new trial, newly discovered evidence must involve something other than the credibility of the witness who testified at trial. 10 But here, the evidence Worthman describes would go only to Lujan’s credibility. Further, the record indicates that Lujan’s credibility was both extensively tested on cross-examination and specifically considered by the district court in its determination of Worthman’s guilt. Hence, such evidence is insufficient to warrant a new trial and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Worthman’s motion for new trial. This assignment of error is without merit.