Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Franco

Court of Appeals of Nebraska

June 25, 2019

State of Nebraska, appellee,
v.
Marlon Franco, appellant.

         1. Statutes. Statutory interpretation presents a question of law.

         2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court independently reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.

         3. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a criminal conviction for a sufficiency of the evidence claim, whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. The relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

         4. Convictions: Corroboration: Witnesses: Testimony: Controlled Substances. Under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, corroboration is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that a conviction not be based solely upon uncorroborated testimony of an individual cooperating with the prosecution if the witness' testimony is corroborated as to material facts and circumstances which tend to support the testimony as to the principal fact in issue.

         5. Criminal Law: Corroboration: Testimony. Testimony of a cooperating individual need not be corroborated on every element of a crime.

         6. Controlled Substances. A person possesses a controlled substance when he or she knows of the nature or character of the substance and of its presence and has dominion or control over it.

         7. Controlled Substances: Evidence: Circumstantial Evidence: Proof. Possession can be either actual or constructive, and constructive possession of an illegal substance may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence.

         [27 Neb. App. 361] 8. Controlled Substances: Circumstantial Evidence: Intent. Circumstantial evidence may support a finding that a defendant intended to distribute, deliver, or dispense a controlled substance in the defendant's possession.

         9. __ :__:__. Circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver may consist of evidence of the quantity of the substance, equipment and supplies found with the substance, the place where the substance was found, the manner of packaging, and the testimony of witnesses experienced and knowledgeable in the field.

          Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: Robert R. Otte, Judge. Affirmed.

          Justin B. Kalemkiarian, of Berry Law Firm, for appellant.

          Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Erin E. Tangeman for appellee.

          Riedmann, Arterburn, and Welch, Judges.

          Arterburn, Judge.

         INTRODUCTION

         Marlon Franco appeals from a conviction, pursuant to jury verdict, for possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416(1) (Reissue 2016). On appeal, Franco alleges that a cooperating individual's testimony was not sufficiently corroborated and that the jury verdict rested on insufficient ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.