State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932

Background

Schwaderer was arrested after a traffic stop; officers found packaged methamphetamine, cash, a digital scale, baggies, and several notebooks/notepads from his vehicle; an additional small amount of meth was found on his person later at the 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 argued he was a user, not a seller.
State introduced weight and purity testing of the seized meth (totaling over 31 grams of pure meth) and expert testimony that the notebooks were "owe notes" consistent with narcotics ledgers; a State expert explained slang and ledger entries for the jury.
Trial court admitted the notebooks with a limiting instruction that they were not to be considered for the truth of the matters asserted; jury also heard testimony about scale calibration and weighing procedures.
Jury convicted on all counts; district court imposed concurrent prison terms; Schwaderer appealed challenging admissibility of weights and notebooks, jury instructions, expert testimony, sufficiency of evidence, sentencing, and raised ineffective-assistance claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of methamphetamine weight testimony	Schwaderer: testimony rested on hearsay/insufficient foundation and violated confrontation because lab calibrations were done by outside company	State: forensic scientist provided adequate foundation via her own testing, daily checks, and methods to establish scale accuracy	Court: admissible; any mention of outside calibration was harmless because witness provided sufficient personal foundational testing
Admissibility/authentication of notebooks ("owe notes")	Schwaderer: notebooks were hearsay and not properly authenticated as drug-transaction records	State: notebooks offered not to prove truth of entries but to show character/use of the place and circumstantial evidence of dealing; officers identified exhibits and expert tied entries to drug-dealing patterns	Court: notebooks were non-hearsay for that purpose and sufficiently authenticated under §27-901(2)(d); admission proper
Jury limiting/cautionary instructions	Schwaderer: instruction/comments regarding exhibits were unclear and prejudicial	State: instructions told jury not to consider the exhibits for truth and were adequate when read together	Court: no reversible error; instructions sufficient and unpreserved objections limited review
Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple claims)	Schwaderer: trial counsel failed to renew suppression motion, obtain independent testing, challenge expert qualifications, and object to closing argument	State: either no prejudice or record insufficient for some claims; some arguments meritless	Court: rejected three claims on the merits (failure to renew suppression motion, not objecting to expert qual., not objecting to closing argument); one claim (independent testing/weighing) left unresolved on direct appeal due to inadequate record

Key Cases Cited

State v. Richardson, 285 Neb. 847 (discussing appellate review of hearsay rulings and foundation)
State v. Russell, 292 Neb. 501 (expert foundation for interpreting drug-related ledger entries)
State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88 (evidentiary/foundation principles)
State v. Hale, 290 Neb. 70 (evidentiary review standards)
State v. Casterline, 293 Neb. 41 (authentication under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901)
State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 (standards for appellate review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance of counsel standard)