Court Opinion

ID: 9742011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:05:21.758255+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:04.717914
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
The defendants, Gerald Dent of Lincoln, Nebraska, and Bradley K. Bodeman, of Grand Island, Nebraska, were charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The only evidence of any conspiracy agreement was a telephone call made by Dent to Bodeman on the early evening of October 4, 1975. The main substance of the telephone conversation, which was taped, is set out in the majority opinion. In the entire conversation there was no mention of cocaine, nor of any controlled substance, nor were any terms used which would indicate they were talking about any particular or general kind of property, goods, or substance. A fair interpretation of the entire conversation would be that Bodeman and Dent agreed to meet in York, Nebraska, that evening so that Dent could deliver 6 or 7 of the unidentified items to Bodeman.
The meeting of the two in York was under surveillance by a highway patrolman. He observed the meeting from a distance of about 300 feet. The meeting lasted approximately 5 minutes. The officer observed nothing unusual or illegal. When the meeting was over the officer followed one car, stopped it, and identified Dent. No property or substance of any kind was found or seized from either of the defendants or from the vehicles, nor was any physical evidence introduced at the trial. It would be fair to say that the State’s evidence established *114simply an agreement to deliver 6 or 7 items of property in York, Nebraska, and a meeting in York thereafter. It might be inferred that the property was illicit or contraband and that the transaction was illegal or even criminal, but it is equally reasonable to infer that the property and the transaction were both legal and proper. At best, the evidence as to Dent failed to prove him guilty of anything, and clearly failed to prove him guilty of the specific crime he was charged with.
The majority opinion now holds in effect that evidence of an agreement between two persons to sell and deliver unidentified property which is possibly or even probably illicit or contraband, followed by some act, is sufficient to establish a conspiracy to distribute cocaine or any other controlled substance. The holding means also that the State may prove a conspiracy to commit a specific offense by proving an agreement to commit any act which is possibly or even probably unlawful or criminal.
The evidence in this case fails to connect the defendant Dent with any controlled substances. The inferences the State relies upon for connection rest upon evidence that Bodeman sold a substance to an individual named Burke in Grand Island several hours after Bodeman and Dent had met in York. The sale was made in Bodeman’s residence. It had been prearranged by Bodeman several days before, and the nature of the substance sold was in dispute. Any connection between Dent and whatever the transaction was between Bodeman and Burke rests upon a web of inferences which the evidence does not support.
In State v. Faircloth, 181 Neb. 333, 148 N. W. 2d 187, we said: “Where circumstantial evidence is relied upon in a criminal prosecution, the circumstances proven must relate directly to the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in such a way as to exclude any other reasonable conclusion. *115Any fact or circumstance reasonably susceptible of two interpretations must be resolved most favorably to the accused.”
The test of the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in a criminal prosecution is whether the facts and circumstances tending to connect the accused with the crime charged are of such conclusive nature as to exclude to a moral certainty every rational hypothesis except that of guilt. State v. Bartlett, 194 Neb. 502, 233 N. W. 2d 904.
Under present conditions in our society it is critically important that the controlled substances laws be vigorously and thoroughly enforced. Fundamental principles of justice, however, also require that the State prove a citizen guilty of the crime with which he is charged. To prove an individual guilty of a conspiracy to commit a specific criminal offense requires more than proving a “conspiracy” to engage in some unidentified conduct which is possibly or even probably illegal. The State must still prove that the defendants here were guilty of a conspiracy to commit a specific crime, and it must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence failed to prove Dent guilty and Bodeman cannot be charged with conspiring with himself. The evidence does not support the conviction.