State v. Worthman, 971 N.W.2d 785

Defendant Jon P. Worthman, a criminal defense attorney, was arrested after a WING-controlled delivery in which his client, Jeffrey Lujan, handed Worthman a little over 1 ounce of cocaine in Worthman’s vehicle on January 7, 2020.
Audio recordings, text messages, and testimony (including Investigator Andrew Soucie) showed Worthman accepted the bag and discussed payment; Worthman gave inconsistent statements to police.
Soucie testified that the quantity was ‘‘a lot of cocaine’’ for personal use and, in his training/experience, suggested intent to distribute; texts and prior exchanges showed Worthman received large amounts of cocaine from Lujan previously.
Worthman waived a jury and was found guilty at a bench trial of possession of a controlled substance (10–28 grams) with intent to distribute; the district court sentenced him to 3 years’ imprisonment.
After conviction, Worthman moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence: additional felony/misdemeanor charges brought against Lujan and a plea agreement dismissing many of those charges; the district court denied the motion.
On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court Worthman argued (1) insufficient evidence of intent to distribute and (2) the new Lujan charges/plea required a new trial. The Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence—intent to distribute	State: quantity + expert testimony + texts/audio support an inference of intent to deliver	Worthman: quantity chosen by Lujan; his questions indicate user, not distributor; Lujan is unreliable	Court: Evidence (quantity, expert opinion, texts, audio) could support conviction; sufficiency affirmed
Denial of motion for new trial—newly discovered evidence	State: new charges relate to witness credibility only and do not warrant new trial	Worthman: additional charges/plea show Lujan was motivated to lie and undisclosed deals affected his availability/credibility	Court: New evidence only attacked credibility; per precedent that is insufficient for new trial; denial not an abuse of discretion

State v. Kofoed, 283 Neb. 767, 817 N.W.2d 225 (Neb. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and appellate deference to factfinder)
State v. Utter, 263 Neb. 632, 641 N.W.2d 624 (Neb. 2002) (quantity plus expert testimony can support inference of intent to deliver)
State v. Faust, 269 Neb. 749, 696 N.W.2d 420 (Neb. 2005) (appellate standard: do not reweigh evidence or resolve credibility)
State v. King, 269 Neb. 326, 693 N.W.2d 250 (Neb. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard for postconviction motions and factual determinations)
State v. Vann, 306 Neb. 91, 944 N.W.2d 503 (Neb. 2020) (discussion of appellate standards and related precedents)
State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169, 953 N.W.2d 224 (Neb. 2021) (newly discovered evidence that attacks witness credibility alone does not justify new trial)