Court Opinion

ID: 9866503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 13:09:05.2143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:57.075843
License: Public Domain

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

               MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
                        (Memorandum Web Opinion)

                                       STATE V. BRADBURY

  NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
 AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

                                 STATE OF NEBRASKA, APPELLEE,
                                                V.

                             CASSANDRA L. BRADBURY, APPELLANT.

                           Filed September 26, 2023.     No. A-22-641.

       Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: DARLA S. IDEUS, Judge. Affirmed.
       Kristi J. Egger, Lancaster County Public Defender, and Shawn Elliott for appellant.
        Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, Melissa R. Vincent, and Braden Dvorak, Senior
Certified Law Student, for appellee.

       BISHOP, ARTERBURN, and WELCH, Judges.
       ARTERBURN, Judge.
                                       I. INTRODUCTION
       Cassandra L. Bradbury was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine) and was thereafter sentenced by the district court to two years of probation.
On appeal, Bradbury asserts that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress both the
statements she made to law enforcement and the evidence obtained by officers during a search of
her bedroom. She also asserts that the court erred in allowing the State to present certain evidence
during her testimony and that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction. For the
reasons set forth below, we affirm.
                                       II. BACKGROUND
        On July 1, 2021, the State filed an information charging Bradbury with possession of a
controlled substance (methamphetamine), in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416(3) (Cum. Supp.

                                               -1-
2022), a Class IV felony. The charge against Bradbury stems from a search of her apartment which
occurred on January 12, 2021.
        The sole law enforcement officer to testify both at a hearing on Bradbury’s motion to
suppress and at trial was Investigator Andrew Barksdale of the Lincoln Police Department.
Barksdale testified that during the evening hours of January 12, 2021, a confidential informant
working for the Lincoln Police Department purchased 6.8 grams of methamphetamine from a local
drug dealer named Babe Sipes. The purchase was made outside of a residence on North 52nd Street
in Lincoln. During this drug deal, Sipes mentioned to the confidential informant that he was
preparing to leave town in a couple of hours. Because there was an active warrant for Sipes’ arrest
which the police wanted to serve before he left town, Barksdale, a member of the narcotics task
force, and other law enforcement officers, began to conduct surveillance of the residence where
the confidential informant had purchased methamphetamine from Sipes. The officers at the scene
were wearing plain clothes, but had their badges clearly displayed.
        While surveilling the residence, two men walked from the residence toward the street.
Believing that one of the men might be Sipes, officers approached the men. They learned that
neither of the two men was Sipes. After officers approached these two men, they became
concerned that Sipes might now know that they were outside waiting for him. One of the officers
approached the front door of the residence and spoke with an occupant. This occupant gave the
officers permission to enter the basement of the residence to look for Sipes.
        Barksdale and two other officers stood on the landing of the basement stairs. They called
down the stairs, identifying themselves as police officers, and asking that Sipes come upstairs
because they had a warrant for his arrest. At this time, the officers had their guns drawn and were
holding a ballistic shield in front of them.
        The first person to come up the stairs from the basement was Bradbury. When Bradbury
approached the officers, they continued to point their guns down the stairs in her direction, but
they did not place her into custody or put handcuffs on her, as she was not the target of their
investigation. Bradbury exited the residence and went to the driveway, where she either stood or
sat, while the officers continued to call downstairs for Sipes. No one told Bradbury that she was
not free to leave the scene.
        The second person to exit the basement was Sipes. He was arrested without incident.
Finally, Brian Ems exited the basement. He was also arrested because he had an active warrant for
his arrest.
        After Sipes and Ems were taken into custody, Barksdale approached Bradbury, who was
one of the residents of the basement apartment. Barksdale asked Bradbury if he could go down to
the basement to retrieve any belongings that Sipes may have left there and to look for any large
quantities of methamphetamine that Sipes may have hidden within the apartment. Bradbury
consented to Barksdale going into the basement to retrieve anything that Sipes, who was not a
resident, may have left there. Upon searching the common area of the apartment, Barksdale located
an orange back pack believed to belong to Sipes. Inside the back pack was a small digital scale.
Also in the common area, Barksdale located a “marijuana bong” on a table.
        Barksdale approached Bradbury again, asking her permission to walk through her bedroom
to ensure that there were not any narcotics there. Barksdale indicated that he was not necessarily
looking for anything of Bradbury’s, he was still focused on finding any large quantities of

                                               -2-
methamphetamine that Sipes may have left behind. According to Barksdale, Bradbury consented
to a search of her bedroom. Barksdale and Bradbury entered the room together. Initially, Barksdale
asked Bradbury’s permission to search certain items within the bedroom. Then, he asked Bradbury
if there was anything illegal in the room and where it would be. According to Barksdale,
Bradbury immediately drew his attention, either verbally or nonverbally, to a box on the dresser.
Bradbury then opened the box and Barksdale was able to observe a stem from a glass pipe that
contained what appeared to be methamphetamine residue. Bradbury told Barksdale that everyone
in the house used the pipe to smoke.
          Barksdale also observed a baggie with what appeared to be methamphetamine residue
inside. This baggie was found in plain view on a nightstand next to the bed. Bradbury also gave
him a marijuana pipe that had been in her bedroom. Bradbury was placed into custody.
         Prior to trial, Bradbury filed a motion to suppress. In the motion, Bradbury first asked the
district court to “suppress all evidence seized from [Bradbury], including, but not limited to, any
visual and auditory observations made by the officers of the Lincoln Police Department for the
reason that the officers lacked probable cause to seize and hold [Bradbury].” Bradbury also asked
the district court to enter “an order suppressing as evidence any and all pre-trial admissions or
statements made by [Bradbury] to any law enforcement personnel, for the reason that such
statements were not made and rights were not waived knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.”
         A hearing was held on Bradbury’s motion on January 6, 2022. At the start of the hearing,
Bradbury’s counsel indicated that the primary focus of the motion to suppress was to address
whether Bradbury was in custody when she was asked to consent to a search of the basement
apartment and when she was otherwise questioned by Barksdale. “Long story short the issue that
we’re essentially attempting to address here is the fact that . . . Bradbury was not read her Miranda
rights, although she was in custody and clearly interrogation was happening.” Counsel’s argument
at the motion to suppress hearing was that Barksdale interrogated Bradbury when he asked her if
she had anything illegal in her bedroom and that, at the time of that interrogation, Bradbury was
in custody:
                 While downstairs, it’s my understanding that Officer Barksdale having not read her
         Miranda rights, said something to the effect . . . to Ms. Bradbury if you had anything illegal
         down here, where would it be. That question I believe constitutes interrogation, at which
         point and time Ms. Bradbury allegedly went to a box or something on the dresser, opened
         it up and presented what is allegedly a pipe that had some sort [of] residue or tested positive
         on a pretest for some sort of methamphetamine.
                 I believe the circumstance today will show that this was clearly custodial. That
         clearly [is] a question that a reasonable person believes could illicit incriminating
         information [and] counts as interrogation. Such a question was asked without reading
         Miranda rights. So therefore, we’re asking the Court to suppress any results of that
         interrogation, and therefore the evidence that was produced as a part of that interrogation.

         Barksdale was the sole witness called by either party at the suppression hearing and
testified as detailed above. After the hearing, the district court entered an order overruling
Bradbury’s motion to suppress. The court found,

                                                 -3-
       Considering the totality of the circumstances, [Bradbury] was not in custody when she
       made the statements in question. When [Bradbury] exited the basement, she passed by
       three police officers at least two with their guns drawn. It was clear that the officers were
       at the house looking for Sipes. [Bradbury] was not restrained or placed under arrest when
       she exited the house. She was allowed to freely pass by the officers after which she went
       to the driveway. She was not told she was not free to leave. She was not placed in
       handcuffs. After Sipes and Ems were arrested, guns were no longer drawn and Investigator
       Barksdale approached [Bradbury] in the driveway. [Bradbury] was not in custody when
       she voluntarily consented to the search or made statements to Investigator Barksdale in the
       basement.

        Trial was held on June 16 and 17, 2022. At the trial, Barksdale again testified about the
events of January 12, 2021. During his testimony, Bradbury’s counsel objected to the admission
of any statements Bradbury made to Barksdale, as raised in the motion to suppress:
        I’m just going to renew my objection as to the motion to suppress previously. I just don’t
        want to get into statements that I believe I tried suppressing based on the fact that she was
        in custody on the Fifth Amendment which was the allegation in the motion to suppress. I
        just want to renew that at this time. If that’s overruled ask for an on-going objection as to
        all of her statements made from this point on.

The district court overruled the objection, but permitted counsel to have a standing objection to
the admission of any statement Bradbury made to Barksdale.
         At trial, the State also called Jake Oshll to testify. Oshll is a chemist at the Nebraska State
Patrol Crime Laboratory. He conducted testing on both the glass pipe stem and the baggie found
in Bradbury’s bedroom. Each of these items tested positive for methamphetamine.
         After the State rested, Bradbury called Ems to testify. In January 2021, Ems resided with
Bradbury and Daniel Wilson in the basement apartment of the residence on North 52nd Street.
Bradbury is the mother of Ems’ two adult children. Wilson is Ems’ best friend. Ems explained that
even though he shared children with Bradbury, at present they were just friends. In January 2021,
Bradbury was in a romantic relationship with Wilson. Ems testified that Sipes did not live in the
basement apartment, but he was friends with Wilson, so Sipes was visiting on January 12. Ems
denied that anyone who lived in the apartment was purchasing drugs from Sipes.
         On the evening of January 12, 2021, Ems testified that he was in the living room of the
apartment with Sipes, when they heard a commotion coming from upstairs near the front door of
the residence. Upon hearing the noise, Sipes jumped up from his seat and immediately attempted
to push ceiling tiles up, as if he was trying to hide something. When Sipes could not get the ceiling
tiles to move, Ems observed him go into the bedroom Bradbury and Wilson share, where Bradbury
was sleeping. Sipes then moved into the bathroom area and the laundry area, before following Ems
into his bedroom. Ems observed Sipes to be rustling around in some storage containers. At this
point, they heard the police announce their presence from the top of the stairs. When Ems heard
his own name called, he went upstairs where he was handcuffed and arrested for an outstanding
warrant. Ems testified that he did not tell police about Sipes’ behavior immediately prior to his
arrest because the police never asked him about Sipes.

                                                 -4-
         Bradbury testified in her own defense. Her account of the events of January 12, 2021,
differed from that of Barksdale. She testified that earlier in the day, Sipes was at the apartment
visiting. However, she never saw him with any drugs. She denied that she purchased drugs from
Sipes and denied using any narcotics. In fact, Bradbury initially testified that no one in the
basement apartment used drugs. During the State’s cross-examination, she did admit that she had
seen Wilson and Ems smoking marijuana in the apartment. Bradbury also admitted that she was
aware that Sipes had a history of being involved with narcotics.
         Bradbury testified that she went to bed early on the evening of January 12, 2021. She was
later awoken by a commotion and exited her bedroom to see what was happening. At that point,
the police officers at the top of the stairs ordered her to exit the apartment. When she reached the
top of the stairs, she observed three officers with their guns drawn. Barksdale grabbed her by the
arm and “yanked” her out the door. She was ordered to go sit in the driveway, but was not put in
handcuffs. Barksdale asked her about who lived in the basement apartment, and whether there was
anyone else down there at that time. She responded that she had not seen anyone else in the
basement when she came up and denied seeing Sipes there after being woken up by the commotion.
She told Barksdale that she, Wilson, and Ems lived in the basement. Bradbury described herself
as being visibly upset during this questioning.
         Bradbury testified that she did not consent to Barksdale searching the apartment. She told
him that she would accompany him downstairs so that he could retrieve Sipes’ belongings from
the common area. But, once they were downstairs, another officer took Sipes’ bags and Barksdale
asked her if he could search the remainder of the apartment. She told him that her name was not
on the lease and she was not sure if she could provide such consent. According to Bradbury,
Barksdale then asked her which bedroom was hers. When she gestured toward her room, Barksdale
“sprinted down the hallway” to the room. When she followed him, Barksdale asked her permission
to search the room. She declined, telling him that she was not sure she could provide such
permission since she shared the room with Wilson. Despite her response, Barksdale began
searching the room. At one point during the search, he asked “if she had anything illegal in the
room, where would it be located at.” Bradbury responded that she did not have anything illegal.
         Bradbury testified that during Barksdale’s search, he opened a box on her dresser and
pulled out a “broken glass piece.” Bradbury testified that she had never seen this item before and
had not ever used it to smoke methamphetamine. Having found this item, Barksdale told her that
if she could provide him with “names of like dealers or whatever,” he would not arrest her.
Bradbury testified that she did not know any drug dealers, so Barksdale took her into custody.
         During the State’s cross-examination of Bradbury, she was asked about an incident which
occurred in May 2020 when she spoke with law enforcement about Wilson assaulting her. The day
after this incident, Bradbury telephoned police to recant her statement that Wilson had assaulted
her, because she was concerned he would be arrested.
         Ultimately, the jury convicted Bradbury of possession of a controlled substance and the
district court subsequently sentenced her to 2 years of probation.
         Bradbury appeals from her conviction here.

                                               -5-
                                 III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
        Bradbury assigns and argues that the district court erred in (1) overruling her motion to
suppress statements she made to law enforcement prior to her arrest; (2) overruling her motion to
suppress evidence obtained by law enforcement during a search of her bedroom; and (3) allowing
the State to question her about a prior incident when she recanted a statement she had previously
made to a law enforcement officer. In addition, Bradbury assigns and argues that there was not
sufficient evidence for the jury to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of a
controlled substance.
                                          IV. ANALYSIS
                               1. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS
         Bradbury first assigns that the district court erred in denying her motion to suppress the
statements she made to Barksdale during his search of her apartment. She argues that she was in
custody at the time of the search and was interrogated without the benefit of Miranda warnings,
resulting in a violation of her constitutional rights. Upon our review, we affirm the decision of the
district court to deny the motion to suppress statements.
                                      (a) Standard of Review
        In reviewing a motion to suppress a statement based on its claimed involuntariness,
including claims that law enforcement procured it by violating the safeguards established by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966),
an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review. Regarding historical facts, an appellate
court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error. Whether those facts meet constitutional
standards, however, is a question of law, which an appellate court reviews independently of the
trial court’s determination. State v. Johnson, 308 Neb. 331, 953 N.W.2d 772 (2021).
                                            (b) Analysis
        The Nebraska Supreme Court has recognized that Miranda v. Arizona, supra, prohibits the
use of statements derived during custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrates the
use of procedural safeguards that are effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.
State v. Benson, 305 Neb. 949, 943 N.W.2d 426 (2020). More specifically, the court held:
                Miranda requires law enforcement to give a particular set of warnings to a person
        in custody before interrogation, including that he or she has the right to remain silent, that
        any statement he or she makes may be used as evidence against him or her, and that he or
        she has the right to an attorney. These warnings are considered prerequisites to the
        admissibility of any statement made by a defendant during custodial interrogation.
                Miranda warnings are required only when a suspect interrogated by the police is in
        custody. The ultimate inquiry for determining whether a person is in custody is whether
        there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of a degree associated with a
        formal arrest. Custody is to be determined based on how a reasonable person in the
        suspect’s situation would perceive his or her circumstances. Stated another way, a seizure
        under the Fourth Amendment occurs only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding
        the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was not free to leave.

                                                -6-
                In considering whether a suspect is in custody for Miranda purposes, relevant
       considerations include, but are not limited to the location of the interaction, who initiated
       the interaction, the duration of the interaction, the type and approach of questioning, the
       freedom of movement of the suspect, . . . and whether the suspect was placed under arrest
       at the termination of the interaction.

State v. Benson, 305 Neb. at 963-64, 943 N.W.2d at 439-40.
        Bradbury argues that at the time of the search of her bedroom, she was in custody and was
interrogated by Barksdale. He asked her whether she had anything illegal in the room and if so
where would it be located. She further argues that her admission that everyone in the basement
apartment used the glass pipe to smoke was the result of the custodial interrogation. Because such
custodial interrogation was conducted without the safeguards of Miranda, Bradbury asserts that
her statements should be suppressed. The district court denied her initial motion to suppress these
statements and denied her renewed motion at trial. We find no error in the district court’s
determination that Bradbury was not in custody during the search of her bedroom.
        The evidence presented at the suppression hearing and at trial revealed that, at the time of
the search of her bedroom, Bradbury was not handcuffed, had not been placed under arrest, and
had not been told that she was not free to leave. In fact, at the time of the search, Bradbury was
voluntarily cooperating with Barksdale’s investigation into Sipes. Barksdale made clear to
Bradbury that the crux of his search of the basement apartment was locating any methamphetamine
that Sipes may have left behind after his arrest. Barksdale specifically testified that when he asked
and received Bradbury’s consent to search her bedroom, his focus was still on Sipes, not on
Bradbury. Given this evidence, a reasonable person would not have believed that they were in
custody.
        Bradbury points to her initial interaction with police on January 12, 2021, as evidence that
she was in custody. Specifically, she references evidence that when she walked upstairs from the
basement apartment, officers had their guns drawn and pointed in her direction. While this
assertion is true, we also must take into account the remainder of Bradbury’s interaction with the
police. Barksdale clearly testified that officers drew their weapons and pointed them in the
direction of the basement apartment during their attempt to arrest Sipes on his outstanding warrant.
Given their knowledge of Sipes, the police utilized their weapons and ballistic shields as a safety
precaution. Outside of Bradbury’s initial exit from the basement, these tactics were not used in any
subsequent interaction with her. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing and at trial
indicated that prior to Bradbury pointing out the glass pipe in her bedroom, she was voluntarily
cooperating with the police in their investigation of Sipes. There was nothing to suggest that
Bradbury could not have ended her interaction with police at any time, that she could not have
refused consent to search her bedroom, or that she was not free to leave the basement apartment.
Bradbury was only taken into custody and informed she was not free to leave once Barksdale
discovered the presence of a controlled substance in her bedroom.
        Based upon the evidence presented and the totality of the circumstances, we conclude
Bradbury was not subject to a custodial interrogation. Therefore, there was no Fifth Amendment
violation of Miranda, and the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.

                                                -7-
                                 2. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
        In her brief on appeal, Bradbury also asserts that the district court erred in overruling her
motion to suppress “all evidence seized from her home in violation of her rights.” Brief for
appellant at 27. In its brief to this court, the State argues that Bradbury waived her objection to the
admission of this evidence because she did not renew her objection at trial. We agree with the
State’s assertion.
        In her motion to suppress, Bradbury did assert that “the officers lacked probable cause to
seize and hold” her in violation of her rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments to the
constitution. However, no specific assertion was made that the evidence seized during the search
of her bedroom should be suppressed because she did not voluntarily consent to that search.
Therefore, it is unclear that the motion actually raised the issue of whether voluntary consent to
the search was given. At the suppression hearing, counsel for Bradbury noted that the essential
point they were addressing in their motion was that Bradbury was not read her Miranda rights
before being asked to respond to Barksdale’s inquiries. The district court overruled the motion to
suppress in its entirety. The court gave a broad reading to the language of the motion and, among
its other findings, determined that Bradbury did voluntarily consent to the search.
        At trial, Bradbury did not object to the admission of the items seized from the bedroom,
including the glass pipe stem or the baggie with methamphetamine residue. In fact, when the State
offered these items into evidence, the district court asked defense counsel if there was any
objection to receiving them. Defense counsel responded that there was no objection to either
exhibit. At the sidebar conference where counsel for Bradbury renewed his objection based on the
motion to suppress, counsel stated:
        Judge, I’m just going [to] renew my objection as to the motion to suppress previously. I
        just don’t want to get into statements that I believe I tried suppressing based on the fact
        that she was in custody on the Fifth Amendment which was the allegation in the motion to
        suppress.

There was no mention of any objection based on a violation of Bradbury’s lack of consent to the
search, or any other violation of her Fourth Amendment rights.
        Where there has been a pretrial ruling regarding the admissibility of evidence, a party must
make a timely and specific objection to the evidence when it is offered at trial in order to preserve
any error for appellate review. State v. Lowman, 308 Neb. 482, 954 N.W.2d 905 (2021). The failure
to object to evidence at trial, even though the evidence was the subject of a previous motion to
suppress, waives the objection, and a party will not be heard to complain of the alleged error on
appeal. Id. Here, the record clearly reveals that Bradbury did not renew any objection to the receipt
of the items seized based on a nonconsensual search, nor did she object to the admission of the
glass stem and baggie when they were offered into evidence at trial. As such, she has waived the
objection, and we do not address further her arguments regarding the validity of the search.

                                                 -8-
                                   3. “RECANTATION” TESTIMONY
                                       (a) Standard of Review
        The scope of cross-examination of a witness rests largely in the discretion of the trial court,
and its ruling will be upheld on appeal unless there is an abuse of discretion. State v. Stricklin, 290
Neb. 542, 861 N.W.2d 367 (2015).
                                         (b) Additional Facts
        During the State’s cross-examination of Bradbury, the prosecutor questioned her about an
occasion in May 2020 when she had spoken with law enforcement about an incident involving
Wilson. Upon the State’s questions, Bradbury testified that although she had not called police to
report the incident, that after a witness summoned the police, Bradbury told them that Wilson had
hit her while they were in a vehicle together. Bradbury also testified that the day after this incident,
she again spoke with the police, but this time she denied that Wilson had hit her, claiming her
previous report was inaccurate. Bradbury had indicated to the police that she did not want Wilson
to be arrested.
        Prior to the State’s cross-examination of Bradbury on this topic, Bradbury’s counsel
objected, arguing that Bradbury’s previous interactions with law enforcement in May 2020 were
not relevant, that such evidence was more prejudicial than probative, and that it did not
demonstrate Bradbury’s character for untruthfulness. The district court overruled the objections,
explaining:
        I think you can inquire into the domestic assault piece only with respect to the recantation.
        I think that . . . does go to truthfulness. . . . But where she is saying one thing one day,
        saying another thing another day, and then kind of trying to bargain with [law
        enforcement], I think that that comes in.

        In her brief on appeal, Bradbury asserts that the district court erred in allowing the State to
question her about the May 2020 incident. Specifically, she argues, “The district court abused its
discretion in finding that [her] recantation in a domestic assault investigation was ‘probative of
truthfulness or untruthfulness’ and in allowing the State to introduce such evidence during cross
examination pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608(2).” Brief for appellant at 30. Upon our review,
we do not find the district court’s decision to admit such testimony into evidence to be an abuse
of discretion.
                                             (c) Analysis
       Neb. Evid. R. 608(2) provides as follows:
       Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting
       his [or her] credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in [Neb. Evid. R. 609],
       may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court,
       if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness be inquired into on cross-examination of the
       witness (a) concerning his [or her] character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (b)
       concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which
       character the witness being cross-examined has testified.

                                                 -9-
The statute therefore commits to the court’s discretion determinations of whether a line of
cross-examination is allowed as being probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. Regarding the
May 2020 incident where Bradbury changed, or recanted, her statement to law enforcement that
Wilson had assaulted her, we find it was reasonable and within the court’s discretion to determine
that this instance was probative of the truthfulness or untruthfulness of Bradbury’s testimony in
this case.
        During her testimony regarding this incident, Bradbury admitted that, initially, she reported
to law enforcement that Wilson had assaulted her. Subsequently, she recanted this statement,
telling police that Wilson had, in fact, not assaulted her. According to Bradbury’s testimony, such
recantation was driven, in part, by Bradbury not wanting Wilson to be arrested and taken to jail.
Such incident is relevant to Bradbury’s truthfulness, as she either lied to law enforcement when
she told them that Wilson had assaulted her, or she lied when she told them that he had not actually
assaulted her. In fact, such incident is particularly relevant in this case, as the majority of
Bradbury’s testimony concerned her interactions with a law enforcement officer.
        In her brief to this court, Bradbury questions whether the May 2020 incident could be
probative of her truthfulness or untruthfulness when there was no evidence to explain the exact
reasoning behind her recantation. However, Bradbury had the opportunity to provide any such
reasoning to the district court and to the jury on redirect. However, counsel failed to ask any
questions on redirect. We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to allow the
State to question Bradbury regarding the May 2020 incident.
                                   4. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE
                                      (a) Standard of Review
        When reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the
conviction, the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in
the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Allen, 314 Neb. 663, 992 N.W.2d 712
(2023).
                                            (b) Analysis
        In her brief on appeal, Bradbury asserts that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient
to sustain her conviction for possession of a controlled substance. However, Bradbury does not
specifically challenge the evidence as to any element of the charged offense, rather, she challenges
only the credibility of Barksdale’s testimony.
        In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not resolve conflicts in the evidence,
pass on the credibility of the witnesses, or reweigh the evidence, as these matters are for the finder
of fact. Id. Bradbury challenges the credibility of Barksdale’s testimony because he could not
remember every specific detail of his encounter with Bradbury in January 2021. However, given
that the jury convicted Bradbury of possession of a controlled substance, it clearly found
Barksdale’s testimony to be credible and Bradbury’s testimony to not be credible. We do not revisit
this credibility determination on appeal.

                                                - 10 -
        Barksdale’s testimony, which the jury clearly believed, established that a glass pipe stem
and a baggie each containing methamphetamine residue were found in Bradbury’s bedroom. Such
testimony, coupled with Bradbury’s admission that everyone in the basement apartment used the
pipe to smoke, sufficiently demonstrates that Bradbury constructively possessed a controlled
substance.
         The Supreme Court has previously held that a person can be guilty of possession of a
controlled substance even when the person does not have actual, physical possession of the
substance, but instead has constructive possession of the substance. State v. Warlick, 308 Neb.
656, 956 N.W.2d 269 (2021). Constructive possession may be proved by mere ownership,
dominion, or control over contraband itself, coupled with the intent to exercise control over the
same. Id. Constructive possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and may be
shown by the accused’s proximity to the item at the time of the arrest or by a showing of dominion
over it. Id. Thus, possession of a controlled substance means either (1) knowingly having it on
one’s person or (2) knowing of the substance’s presence and having control over the substance. Id.
Evidence that a defendant had constructive possession of a drug with knowledge of its presence
and its character as a controlled substance is sufficient to support a finding of possession and to
sustain a conviction for unlawful possession. Id.
        Here, Barksdale testified that when he asked Bradbury where anything illegal in her
bedroom was kept, she immediately brought Barksdale’s attention to a box on her dresser. When
she opened the box, Barksdale saw the glass pipe stem, previously used to smoke
methamphetamine, inside. Such evidence demonstrates Bradbury’s knowledge of the glass pipe,
and thus, of the methamphetamine residue within. The pipe stem was found in Bradbury’s
bedroom, which indicates her control over it. Additionally, Bradbury admitted to Barksdale that
everyone in the basement apartment, which would include herself, smoked using that glass pipe
stem. This evidence, taken together, demonstrates Bradbury’s constructive possession of a
controlled substance. The evidence supports Bradbury’s conviction.
                                       V. CONCLUSION
       Having rejected each of Bradbury’s assigned errors, we affirm her conviction for
possession of a controlled substance.
                                                                            AFFIRMED.

                                              - 11 -