Background

• Richardson was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute; weight evidence was central to grading and guilt.
• Redinger testified Richardson weighed cocaine on a digital scale showing 11.2 grams; Pillard weighed 10.25 grams for trial, a key piece of weight evidence.
• The district court admitted Pillard’s weight testimony over Richardson’s foundation objections.
• On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to address the foundation for scale accuracy.
• The Court held that foundation regarding the accuracy of the scale is required before admitting weight evidence from a scale; Pillard’s testimony lacked sufficient foundation.
• Because the weight evidence was crucial to the verdict, the error was not harmless; the conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• State v. Chambers, 233 Neb. 235 (Nebraska 1989) (stopwatch as measuring device; foundation required for weight evidence)
• State v. Canady, 263 Neb. 552 (Nebraska 2002) (reasonable proof of accuracy and proper functioning of measurement device required)
• State v. Smith, 187 Neb. 152 (Nebraska 1971) (weight testimony foundational issues disapproved in later analysis)
• State v. Infante, 199 Neb. 601 (Nebraska 1977) (weight evidence credibility discussed in context of foundation)
• Com. v. Podgurski, 81 Mass. App. 175 (Mass. App. 2012) (calibration requires testing against known weight)
• Diaz, 88 N.C. App. 699 (North Carolina 1988) (precision near minimum weight requires tighter foundation)
• State v. Dampier, 862 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. App. 1993) (calibration and testing procedures impact admissibility)
• State v. Manning, 184 N.C. App. 130 (North Carolina 2007) (scale credibility and calibration considerations)
• State v. Taylor, 587 N.W.2d 604 (Iowa 1998) (weight measurement device foundations discussed)
• Podgurski, 81 Mass. App. 175 (Mass. App. 2012) (calibration defined as testing against known standard)