State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932

Robert L. Schwaderer was stopped, arrested for driving under suspension and false reporting; searches of his person and vehicle produced packaged methamphetamine (totaling ~34.06 g and a separate .3580 g), cash, a digital scale, baggies, and several notebooks/notepads.
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 contested intent to deliver.
The State introduced the seized notebooks/notepads ("owe notes") and had an ex-narcotics-unit witness testify interpreting entries as consistent with drug ledgers; the court admitted the notebooks with a limiting instruction that they were not admitted for the truth of the matters asserted.
A forensic scientist testified about testing, weighing, and purity analysis of the methamphetamine, including calibration/accuracy checks on the scales; the State argued the quantity supported intent to distribute.
Jury convicted Schwaderer on all counts; trial court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms within statutory limits; Schwaderer appealed raising evidentiary, instructional, ineffective-assistance, sufficiency, and sentencing claims.

Issue	Schwaderer’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Admissibility of methamphetamine weight testimony	Testimony lacked foundation, relied on hearsay about calibration, and violated confrontation	Forensic scientist provided adequate personal-foundation checks and calibration procedures; any error harmless	Admitted; foundation sufficient and any limited error harmless
Admissibility of notebooks/notepads	Notebooks were hearsay and not properly authenticated	Notebooks offered to show character/use of location (not for truth); authenticated by seizure testimony and expert interpretation; circumstantial authentication ok	Admitted; not hearsay for nontruth purpose and adequately authenticated
Jury cautionary instruction & final instruction limiting use of exhibits	Instructioning was erroneous and prejudicial	Limiting instruction correctly advised jury not to consider exhibits for truth and was adequate	No reversible error; instructions correct when read together
Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple claims)	Counsel failed to renew suppression motion, obtain independent testing, challenge expert qualifications, and object to closing argument	Some claims waived or meritless; record insufficient on independent testing; other failures were nonprejudicial or would have failed	Three claims rejected on merits or waiver; one claim (independent testing) not resolved on direct appeal due to insufficient record

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Russell, 292 Neb. 501 (2016) (foundation for expert interpretation of drug-related ledgers)
State v. Casterline, 293 Neb. 41 (2016) (authentication standard under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901)
State v. Richardson, 285 Neb. 847 (2013) (appellate review of hearsay rulings)
State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 (2016) (standards on ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal)