State v. Carpenter, 293 Neb. 860

On Nov. 20, 2014, police searched a car belonging to Eli Carpenter and found a Tupperware with 32.46 g of methamphetamine, drug paraphernalia, and a backpack containing a small amount of meth and Trey Carpenter’s ID. Trey was arrested and charged with possession with intent to deliver.
Trey admitted ownership of the small amount in his backpack and a meth addiction, but testified he did not sell or distribute meth or work with Eli and denied knowledge of the larger quantity.
The State presented lab and investigator testimony showing the larger amount was methamphetamine and opined the quantity and paraphernalia were consistent with distribution.
On rebuttal, the State called officers to testify about a September 2014 controlled purchase in which a confidential informant bought meth from Trey; charges from that incident were pending.
The district court admitted the rebuttal testimony for the limited purpose of evaluating Trey’s testimony and sua sponte instructed the jury on that limited use. The jury convicted Trey of possession with intent to deliver (32.46 g). Trey was sentenced to 5–15 years (mandatory minimum 5 years).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of rebuttal evidence (September controlled purchase)	State: rebuttal was proper to contradict Trey’s direct denial of dealing	Carpenter: § 27‑608(2) forbids extrinsic evidence of specific instances to impeach; State should have cross‑examined him	Court: admissible under the specific contradiction / "opening the door" doctrine; § 27‑608(2) does not bar such rebuttal when used to disprove a specific factual assertion
Sufficiency of evidence for intent to deliver	State: quantity (32.46 g), paraphernalia, and investigator opinion support distribution intent	Carpenter: evidence showed Eli possessed the Tupperware; Trey was only a passenger and unaware	Court: evidence viewed favorably to the State was sufficient; credibility resolved by jury
Sentence excessive	N/A (State asserting sentence lawful)	Carpenter: court failed to consider mitigating factors; imposition of mandatory minimum suggests doubt about guilt	Court: sentence within statutory limits (Class IC felony) and court did not abuse discretion; mandatory minimum constrained sentencing

Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62 (permitting prior-incident evidence to contradict defendant’s direct testimony denying narcotics dealing)
People v. Thomas, 345 P.3d 959 (Colo. App.) (specific-contradiction doctrine allows extrinsic proof to contradict defendant’s direct testimony)
Huber v. Rohrig, 280 Neb. 868 (Neb. 2010) (discussing the "opening the door" concept and expanded relevancy)
Sturzenegger v. Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home, 276 Neb. 327 (Neb. 2008) (evidence rule limits and when extrinsic evidence is admissible for other purposes)
State v. Wamala, 158 N.H. 583 (N.H. 2009) (analysis distinguishing specific contradiction and curative admissibility doctrines)