28-1439.01. Uniform Controlled Substances Act; conviction; uncorroborated testimony; how treated.
No conviction for an offense punishable under any provision of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act shall be based solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of a cooperating individual.
Source
Cross References
Annotations
Conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver was not based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a cooperating individual, even though some testimony was elicited from two cooperating individuals, where the State provided evidence of text messages that indicated that the defendant was selling methamphetamine, as well as witness testimony from five other noncooperating individuals who generally corroborated the cooperating individuals' testimony. State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873, 920 N.W.2d 692 (2018).
The evidence supporting each count charged must independently satisfy the corroboration requirements of this section. State v. Johnson, 261 Neb. 1001, 627 N.W.2d 753 (2001).
Corroboration is sufficient for the purposes of this section if the witness is corroborated as to material facts and circumstances which tend to support the testimony as to the principal fact in issue. State v. Goodro, 251 Neb. 311, 556 N.W.2d 630 (1996).
Corroboration is sufficient if the witness is corroborated as to material facts and circumstances which tend to support the testimony as to the principal fact in issue. State v. Jimenez, 248 Neb. 255, 533 N.W.2d 913 (1995).
This section requires only that a conviction be based on something more than a cooperating individual's testimony. It is sufficient if the cooperating individual's testimony is corroborated as to material facts and circumstances which tend to support the testimony as to the principal fact in issue. State v. Kramer, 238 Neb. 252, 469 N.W.2d 785 (1991).
Corroboration may be supplied by observation that the meeting between the subject and the cooperating individual actually took place and by searches of the cooperating individual both before and within a reasonable time after the drug purchase took place. State v. Knoefler, 227 Neb. 410, 418 N.W.2d 217 (1988).
This section requires only that a conviction be based on something more than a cooperating individual's testimony. It is sufficient for conviction if the cooperating individual is corroborated as to material facts and circumstances which tend to support the testimony as to the principal fact in issue. State v. Cain, 223 Neb. 796, 393 N.W.2d 727 (1986).
Corroboration is sufficient, for purposes of this statute, if the witness is corroborated as to material facts and circumstances which tend to support the testimony as to the principal fact in issue. State v. Taylor, 221 Neb. 114, 375 N.W.2d 610 (1985).
The requirement of corroboration in this section does not operate to exclude testimony which is not corroborated by other evidence; rather, it only requires that the conviction be based on something more than only such testimony. State v. Beckner, 211 Neb. 442, 318 N.W.2d 889 (1982).
Searches of the cooperating individual performed by citizens, trained by law enforcement officials and working as agents of law enforcement, along with other evidence, were valid to establish corroboration of the cooperating individual's testimony as required by this section. State v. Kuta, 12 Neb. App. 847, 686 N.W.2d 374 (2004).