State v. Savage
301 Neb. 873
Neb.2018Background
- Defendant Courtney J. Savage was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and alleged habitual criminal status after a February 2017 traffic stop that yielded >7.6 grams of meth and three occupants in the vehicle.
- Officers had been communicating with an arrestee (Dryden) via text; those texts showed a contact nicknamed "Pint," which police records linked to Savage.
- During the stop, passengers testified Savage took a bag from his groin and threw it to a passenger (Tannehill) who concealed drugs in her person; officers observed Savage’s zipper undone.
- The State introduced photographs of text-message screens and Cellbrite extraction reports from Savage’s and Dryden’s phones; Savage objected on foundation, hearsay, best-evidence, and completeness grounds.
- The jury convicted Savage; the trial court found habitual criminal status and sentenced him to the statutory mandatory minimum of 10 years (maximum 18 years imposed).
- On appeal Savage challenged (a) denial of his motion in limine and admission of the text messages/Cellbrite reports, (b) denial of motions to dismiss/directed verdict, (c) sufficiency/corroboration of evidence, and (d) excessiveness of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Savage) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of texts | State: phone belonged to Savage; Cellbrite output and officer testimony show messages and usage; weight questions go to jury | Savage: messages not authenticated as authored by him; possible third‑party alteration; hearsay | Court: Authentication standard met by greater weight of evidence; admission proper; hearsay exception (§27‑801(4)(b)(i)) requires same greater‑weight showing and was satisfied |
| Best evidence / completeness for Cellbrite reports | State: printouts are originals under §27‑1001(3); redactions limited to relevant data | Savage: redacted extracts violate best evidence/or completeness; missing context | Court: printouts qualify as originals; rule of completeness discretionary — no abuse of discretion admitting redacted extracts |
| Sufficiency / corroboration of cooperating witnesses | State: multiple noncooperating witnesses plus texts and officers’ observations corroborate cooperating witnesses (Dryden, Addleman) | Savage: conviction relied on uncorroborated cooperating testimony; possession not proved beyond reasonable doubt | Court: corroboration requirement satisfied; constructive possession proven by testimony, officers’ observations, and texts; evidence sufficient when viewed for prosecution |
| Sentencing excessive | State: sentence within statutory range for habitual offender | Savage: sentence marked abuse of discretion | Court: sentence (10–18 years) within statutory limits; trial court considered proper factors; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dixon, 282 Neb. 274, 802 N.W.2d 866 (authentication and appellate review principles)
- State v. Henry, 292 Neb. 834, 875 N.W.2d 374 (text‑message authentication and foundation)
- State v. Elseman, 287 Neb. 134, 841 N.W.2d 225 (authentication not a high hurdle)
- State v. Decker, 261 Neb. 382, 622 N.W.2d 903 (best‑evidence/original writings rule and §27‑1001)
- State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (rule of completeness; court discretion)
- State v. Garcia, 216 Neb. 769, 345 N.W.2d 826 (constructive possession principles)
- State v. Huff, 282 Neb. 78, 802 N.W.2d 77 (appellate review of sentencing within statutory limits)