State v. Worthman, 311 Neb. 284

Jon P. Worthman, a criminal defense attorney, was the target of a WING controlled delivery; law enforcement arranged for his client Jeffrey Lujan to transfer a little over 1 ounce of cocaine to Worthman on Jan. 7, 2020.
The transfer was audio-/video-recorded; officers, listening in real time, observed Lujan hand the bag to Worthman and immediately arrested Worthman and recovered the cocaine.
Investigators presented evidence (text messages, prior transactions, and testimony) that Worthman had received ounce‑quantities of cocaine from Lujan over months and often accepted cocaine as payment for legal services.
Investigator Soucie testified that the quantity involved was inconsistent with personal use and, in his opinion and training, indicated intent to distribute.
Worthman gave inconsistent statements to police denying and then admitting past cocaine receipt/use; he argued at trial that the evidence showed only personal use and relied on Lujan as an unreliable witness.
After a bench trial Worthman was convicted of possession with intent to distribute (10–28 g), sentenced to 3 years, moved for new trial based on subsequently filed charges/plea involving Lujan, and appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: intent to distribute	State: quantity + expert opinion + prior texts and exchanges permit inference of intent to deliver	Worthman: Lujan controlled amount; statements like “what am I getting?” indicate user, not distributor; Lujan is unreliable	Affirmed conviction; viewed favorably to State, quantity + expert testimony support inference of intent to distribute
Motion for new trial: newly discovered evidence (additional charges/plea of informant)	State: new information affects only witness credibility, which is not a basis for new trial	Worthman: new charges/plea show motive to lie and undisclosed deals; warrants new trial	Denied; new evidence pertains only to credibility, insufficient to require new trial; no abuse of discretion

State v. Kofoed, 283 Neb. 767, 817 N.W.2d 225 (sets appellate sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
State v. Utter, 263 Neb. 632, 641 N.W.2d 624 (expert testimony that quantity indicates intent to deliver can support inference of distribution)
State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749, 696 N.W.2d 420 (appellate deference to factfinder on credibility and evidence conflicts)
State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169, 953 N.W.2d 224 (newly discovered evidence that only affects witness credibility does not justify new trial)