State v. Schwaderer, 296 Neb. 932

Schwaderer was arrested during a traffic stop; searches produced ~34.06 g of packaged methamphetamine, additional packaged meth, ~$3,300 cash, a digital scale, baggies, and several notebooks/notepads.
Charged with possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine (≥28 g but <140 g), possession of drug money, and false reporting; he conceded possession but disputed intent to distribute.
The State introduced the notebooks/notepads ("owe notes") and elicited an opinion from a former narcotics-unit officer that the writings were consistent with drug ledgers; the court admitted the exhibits and gave a limiting instruction that they were not admitted for the truth of the matters asserted.
A forensic scientist testified about testing, weighing, calibration checks, and purity analysis showing at least 31 g of actual methamphetamine; the State argued the quantity and notes indicated distribution.
Jury convicted on all counts; district court sentenced to concurrent terms (10–15 years for possession with intent to deliver, and shorter terms on other counts). Schwaderer appealed challenging evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, expert testimony, sufficiency, sentences, and trial counsel effectiveness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Schwaderer)	Held
Admissibility of weight testimony	Testimony about weights and scale checks was properly founded and admissible	Testimony rested on hearsay about outside calibration, lacked foundation and violated confrontation	Court: Foundation adequate (witness performed known-weight checks); any error about outside calibration harmless; admission proper
Admissibility of notebooks/notepads (hearsay/authentication)	Notes were not offered for truth but as circumstantial evidence of drug-dealing; authenticated by seizure and expert interpretation	Notes are hearsay and insufficiently authenticated	Court: Not hearsay when offered to show character/use of place and possession for sale; authentication satisfied under §27-901(2)(d); admission proper
Jury cautionary instruction and Instruction No. 8	Limiting instruction that exhibits not for truthfulness was sufficient	Argued instruction/admonishment improper or insufficient	Court: Defendant failed to preserve some objections; instructions read as a whole were proper and not prejudicial
Ineffective assistance of counsel (several claims)	N/A (State defends adequacy of counsel)	Counsel failed to renew suppression motion, obtain independent testing, challenge expert qualifications, and object to closing argument	Court: Record insufficient on independent testing claim (declined to decide); other three claims lacked deficient performance or prejudice; most claims rejected

State v. Richardson, 285 Neb. 847 (discussing standard for reviewing hearsay rulings)
State v. Hale, 290 Neb. 70 (evidentiary and foundation principles)
State v. Custer, 292 Neb. 88 (authentication and admissibility)
State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 (evidentiary standards)
State v. Draper, 295 Neb. 88 (weighing circumstantial evidence and expert testimony)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)