State v. Russell, 292 Neb. 501

Omaha task force investigated crack distribution; wiretaps, controlled buys, and surveillance identified Darnell L. Russell as a supplier.
Russell was charged with conspiracy to commit unlawful possession with intent to deliver >140 grams of crack (charged as a Class IB felony). Trial resulted in guilty verdict.
Police played intercepted calls/texts at trial; Officer James Paul (experienced narcotics investigator) interpreted drug-related code words for the jury. Russell objected that this invaded the jury’s province.
The State disclosed a second confidential informant (F.L.) late; Russell moved to continue or exclude F.L.’s testimony for violation of a discovery order. The court denied both motions.
At sentencing, Russell argued the conspiracy should be a Class II (not IB) felony and that the 20–25 year sentence was excessive; the court rejected both arguments and imposed 20–25 years.

Issue	State's Argument	Russell's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Officer Paul’s interpretation of intercepted calls	Testimony admissible as lay opinion helpful to jury given officer’s training/experience	Testimony invaded jury factfinding (and alternatively was inadmissible expert testimony)	Admissible under Neb. Evid. R. 701; no abuse of discretion — officer’s experience provided proper foundation and helpfulness to jury
Admission of informant F.L. despite late disclosure	Late naming did not prejudice defense; substance known and opportunity for deposition	Late disclosure violated discovery order, prejudiced ability to investigate	No abuse of discretion — nondisclosure was not materially prejudicial; defense had prior knowledge of substance and chance to depose
Classification of offense (Class IB v. Class II)	Conspiracy is the class of the most serious object offense; here underlying offense (possession w/ intent >140g) is Class IB	Statutory exception for Class I felonies makes conspiracy a Class II when object is Class I — argued misclassification	Conviction properly classified as Class IB; underlying offense was Class IB (not Class I), so exception inapplicable
Sentence excessive	Sentence within statutory limits and tailored to defendant’s high risk and background	Sentence excessive/abuse of discretion	Sentence (20–25 years) within statutory range and not an abuse of discretion

State v. Stricklin, 290 Neb. 542 (discussing standard for review of evidentiary rulings)
State v. Alford, 278 Neb. 818 (trial court discretion on discovery sanctions)
State v. Wang, 291 Neb. 632 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Ramirez, 287 Neb. 356 (appellate limitation on raising new appellate grounds for trial objections)
U.S. v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134 (Eighth Circuit: police interpretation of drug slang can aid jurors)
U.S. v. Rollins, 862 F.2d 1282 (Seventh Circuit on expert/lay testimony re drug code words)
State v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271 (discovery governed by statute/rules; reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Ash, 286 Neb. 681 (materiality standard for late disclosure prejudice)
State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88 (review of sentences within statutory limits)