State v. Worthman, 311 Neb. 284

In a WING-controlled delivery on Jan. 7, 2020, defendant and criminal-defense attorney Jon P. Worthman received a little over 1 ounce of cocaine from his client, Jeffrey Lujan; the exchange was audio/video recorded and Worthman was arrested immediately after.
The State charged Worthman with possession of a controlled substance (10–28 grams of cocaine) with intent to distribute; Worthman waived a jury and elected a bench trial.
Trial evidence included the controlled-delivery recording, investigator Soucie’s testimony (including his opinion that the quantity exceeded personal use), texting evidence showing prior large transfers of cocaine between Lujan and Worthman, and Worthman’s inconsistent post-arrest statements admitting past purchases and use.
Lujan testified that he often paid Worthman in cocaine and that Worthman had told him the cocaine was used to bribe a local prosecutor; Soucie had recruited Lujan as a confidential informant.
The district court found Worthman guilty and sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment; Worthman moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence concerning new charges and a plea deal involving Lujan, which the court denied.
Worthman appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of intent to distribute and (2) abuse of discretion in denying a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to distribute	Evidence (quantity of cocaine, investigator opinion, texts showing prior large transfers, recorded statements) supports inference of intent to distribute	Quantity was selected by Lujan; Worthman’s question “what am I getting?” shows user mindset; only Lujan claims distribution and is unreliable	Affirmed. Viewing evidence in State's favor, a rational factfinder could infer intent from quantity + expert opinion + corroborating texts/recording
Denial of new trial based on newly discovered evidence about Lujan (new charges, plea agreement)	Newly discovered facts do not change that Lujan’s credibility was tested at trial; impeachment-only evidence is insufficient for new trial	New charges/plea show Lujan had motive to lie and the State had undisclosed accommodations—warrants new trial	Affirmed. The new evidence bore only on Lujan’s credibility; impeachment-only evidence does not justify a new trial; denial was not an abuse of discretion

State v. Kofoed, 283 Neb. 767 (2012) (articulates appellate sufficiency-of-evidence review and that courts do not reweigh evidence)
State v. Utter, 263 Neb. 632 (2002) (quantity plus expert testimony can support inference of intent to deliver)
State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749 (2005) (motion for new trial reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. King, 269 Neb. 326 (2005) (discusses standards for trial-court discretion and appellate review)
State v. Vann, 306 Neb. 91 (2020) (cited regarding evidentiary review principles; noted as overruled on other grounds)
State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169 (2021) (newly discovered evidence that only impeaches witness credibility does not warrant a new trial)