State v. Schwaderer
296 Neb. 932
Neb.2017Background
- Robert L. Schwaderer was arrested after a traffic stop; officers seized packaged methamphetamine (two quantities totaling about 34.418 grams raw, lab-tested to at least 31 grams pure), $3,300 cash, a digital scale, baggies, and several notebooks/notepads found in his vehicle. A smaller separate package was found later on his person in jail.
- Charged with possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine (at least 28 g but less than 140 g), possession of drug money, and false reporting; he conceded possession but asserted he was a user, not a seller.
- The State introduced the notebooks/notepads ("owe notes") and expert testimony from a former narcotics-unit member who interpreted ledger-style entries as consistent with drug transactions; the court admitted the notebooks with a limiting instruction that they were not received for the truth of their contents.
- A forensic scientist testified regarding testing, weighing, and scale calibration; the court admitted weight and purity testimony showing sufficient quantity for the charged range.
- The jury convicted on all counts; Schwaderer appealed challenging admissibility of the notebooks and weight testimony, jury instructions/limiting instruction, expert qualifications, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, and asserted several ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Schwaderer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of methamphetamine weight testimony | Witness had adequate foundation; scales were tested and accurate | Testimony rested on hearsay about outside calibration, lacked foundation, and implicated Confrontation rights | Admitted: court found sufficient personal foundation (known weights, daily/monthly checks); any error about outside calibration was harmless |
| Admissibility of notebooks/notepads | Exhibits authenticated and offered as nonhearsay circumstantial evidence of drug-dealing (character/use of place) | Exhibits were hearsay and insufficiently authenticated (unknown authors, dates) | Admitted: writings were offered for nonhearsay purpose and authenticated circumstantially under Neb. Rev. Stat. §27-901(2)(d) |
| Jury limiting instruction and court cautionary instruction | Instructions adequately told jury not to consider exhibits for truth; State’s argument consistent with limitation | Instruction was insufficient or State’s closing contradicted the limitation | No reversible error: instructions, read together, were adequate; defendant didn’t preserve some objections and could not show prejudice |
| Expert witness qualification and testimony | Witness’ experience sufficiently aided the jury in interpreting slang/ledgers; testimony admissible as expert or experienced lay witness | Witness not properly qualified as expert; trial court failed required procedure | Waived on appeal (no timely objection to qualifications); alternatively, witness would have been allowed to testify anyway |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Richardson, 285 Neb. 847 (2013) (standard for reviewing hearsay rulings)
- State v. Hale, 290 Neb. 70 (2015) (evidentiary standards)
- State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88 (2015) (authentication and evidence standards)
- State v. Russell, 292 Neb. 501 (2016) (expert testimony admissibility under experience/perception)
- State v. Casterline, 293 Neb. 41 (2016) (authentication via appearance, substance, internal patterns)
- State v. Elseman, 287 Neb. 134 (2014) (use of ledgers/documents as circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Ely, 295 Neb. 607 (2017) (application of Strickland in Nebraska)