State v. Salvador Rodriguez, 296 Neb. 950

On July 23, 2014, Officer Wackler responded to a domestic disturbance involving Lori Ezell and was later asked by Ezell to check a house she said she was housesitting; the lessees (Salvador Rodriguez and Rosa Anguiano) were reportedly out of town.
Ezell reported lights on and someone in the garage after she and her child returned from a walk; officers found the front door unlocked or not fully latched and conducted a warrantless sweep of areas where a person could hide.
During the sweep officers observed firearms in plain view, one with an apparently defaced serial number; these observations formed the basis for subsequent search warrants.
Warrants executed July 30 and August 2, 2014, yielded large quantities of methamphetamine (≈340 grams) under a basement couch and other items; Rodriguez was charged with possession with intent to deliver and possession of a defaced firearm.
At trial Ezell testified (without prior 404 notice) that she and Rodriguez used methamphetamine together in the basement and that drugs were kept under the basement couch; defense objected under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2).
Rodriguez was convicted of possession with intent to deliver; he appealed arguing (1) the initial warrantless entry was unlawful, (2) testimony about past drug use was improperly admitted (and no limiting instruction given), and (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument claiming Rodriguez owned the house.

Issue	State's Argument	Rodriguez's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless entry/search was reasonable	Exigent circumstances (possible burglary/intruder) and/or Ezell consented	Entry was nonconsensual and lacked exigent circumstances; suppression required	Search justified under exigent-circumstances (emergency doctrine); denial of suppression affirmed
Admissibility of Ezell’s testimony about drug use	Testimony was direct evidence of possession tied to charged timeframe (intrinsic)	Testimony was impermissible other‑acts (404) evidence and prejudicial	Testimony treated as intrinsic to continuous possession; admission not error
Failure to give a limiting instruction on drug‑use testimony	No limiting instruction necessary because evidence was intrinsic	Lack of instruction allowed propensity inference and was prejudicial	No error: limiting instruction unnecessary because evidence bore directly on charged offense
Prosecutorial remarks in closing (stating Rodriguez owned house)	Any such remark was not prejudicial; ownership not dispositive	Misstatement was misconduct and prejudiced jury	Not considered on appeal because closing argument not in record/bill of exceptions; claim precluded

State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Eberly, 271 Neb. 893 (emergency doctrine/exigent‑circumstances analysis)
U.S. v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (continuous possession — evidence on other dates is direct evidence)
Hill v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 1 (warrantless entry justified where door ajar and burglary suspected)
State v. Freemont, 284 Neb. 179 (discussion of possession and other‑acts evidence)