Nebraska Statutes

§ 28-416 — Prohibited acts; violations; penalties

Nebraska § 28-416
JurisdictionNebraska
Ch. 28Crimes and Punishments

This text of Nebraska § 28-416 (Prohibited acts; violations; penalties) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416 (2026).

Text

(1)Except as authorized by the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, it shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally:
(a)To manufacture, distribute, deliver, dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, deliver, or dispense a controlled substance; or (b) to create, distribute, or possess with intent to distribute a counterfeit controlled substance.
(2)Except as provided in subsections (4), (5), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of this section, any person who violates subsection (1) of this section with respect to:
(a)A controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II, or III of section 28-405 which is an exceptionally hazardous drug shall be guilty of a Class II felony;
(b)any other controlled substance classified in Schedule I, II, or III of section 28-405 sha

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Baxter
888 N.W.2d 726 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2017)
122 case citations
State v. Aldaco
710 N.W.2d 101 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2006)
99 case citations
Logan v. Department of Correctional Services
578 N.W.2d 44 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1998)
83 case citations
State v. Biernacki
465 N.W.2d 732 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1991)
69 case citations
State v. Abdouch
434 N.W.2d 317 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1989)
63 case citations
State v. Bishop
639 N.W.2d 409 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2002)
61 case citations
Perryman v. NEB. DEPT. OF CORR. SERVS.
568 N.W.2d 241 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1997)
58 case citations
State v. Anderson
605 N.W.2d 124 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2000)
50 case citations
State v. Baltimore
463 N.W.2d 808 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1990)
43 case citations
State v. Bensing
547 N.W.2d 464 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1996)
32 case citations
State v. Blakely
420 N.W.2d 300 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1988)
30 case citations
Ahmann v. NEBRASKA DEPT. OF CORR. SVCS.
767 N.W.2d 104 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2009)
22 case citations
State v. Andre W.
590 N.W.2d 827 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1999)
16 case citations
State v. Beckner
318 N.W.2d 889 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1982)
14 case citations
State v. Beeken
585 N.W.2d 865 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 1998)
13 case citations
State v. Billups
641 N.W.2d 71 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2002)
10 case citations
State v. Armendariz
449 N.W.2d 555 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1989)
9 case citations
In Re Carrdale H. II
781 N.W.2d 622 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2010)
8 case citations
In Re Interest of Steven K.
661 N.W.2d 320 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2003)
8 case citations
McHenry v. Nebraska Liquor Control Commission
555 N.W.2d 350 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 1996)
7 case citations

Legislative History

Source: Laws 1977, LB 38, § 76; Laws 1978, LB 808, § 2; Laws 1980, LB 696, § 3; Laws 1985, LB 406, § 4; Laws 1986, LB 504, § 1; Laws 1989, LB 592, § 2; Laws 1991, LB 742, § 1; Laws 1993, LB 117, § 2; Laws 1995, LB 371, § 6; Laws 1997, LB 364, § 8; Laws 1999, LB 299, § 1; Laws 2001, LB 398, § 14; Laws 2003, LB 46, § 1; Laws 2004, LB 1083, § 86; Laws 2005, LB 117, § 3; Laws 2008, LB844, § 1; Laws 2010, LB800, § 4; Laws 2011, LB19, § 2; Laws 2011, LB463, § 1; Laws 2013, LB298, § 2; Laws 2015, LB605, § 26; Laws 2016, LB1106, § 5; Laws 2017, LB487, § 6; Laws 2022, LB519, § 4; Laws 2022, LB808, § 2; Laws 2023, LB157, § 7; Laws 2025, LB 72, § 2; Laws 2025, LB530, § 5. Effective Date: September 3, 2025 Note: The Revisor of Statutes has pursuant to section 49-769 correlated LB72, section 2, with LB530, section 5, to reflect all amendments. Cross References: Motor Vehicle Operator's License Act, see section 60-462. Nebraska Behavioral Health Services Act, see section 71-801. Annotations: 1. Elements 2. Evidence 3. Generally 4. Jury instruction 5. Plain view doctrine 6. Possession 7. Possession with intent to deliver 8. Sentencing 1. Elements Subsection (5)(a) of this section requires the State to prove that the defendant is someone (1) who is 18 years of age or older and (2) who knowingly and intentionally (a) used a person under 18 years of age in one of the ways listed (b) to perform one of the listed acts related to drug distribution. State v. Reinhart, 283 Neb. 710, 811 N.W.2d 258 (2012). Unless a statute specifically provides otherwise, the quantity possessed of a controlled substance is not an essential element of the crime. State v. Thompson, 244 Neb. 189, 505 N.W.2d 673 (1993). The weight or amount of marijuana possessed is not an element of the substantive offense of possession of marijuana, and the weight or amount of marijuana only determines the grade of the offense and relates to the punishment which may be imposed on conviction for the offense of simple possession. Simple possession of marijuana is a lesser-included offense of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. State v. Malone, 4 Neb. App. 904, 552 N.W.2d 772 (1996). 2. Evidence A passenger's mere presence in a vehicle with contraband is insufficient to support a finding of joint possession. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). Generally, a passenger's joint possession of a controlled substance found in a vehicle can be established by evidence that (1) supports an inference that the driver was involved in drug trafficking, as distinguished from possessing illegal drugs for personal use; (2) shows the passenger acted suspiciously during a traffic stop; and (3) shows the passenger was not a casual occupant but someone who had been traveling a considerable distance with the driver. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). Evidence which was seized during a search based solely on an illegal wiretap must be suppressed and a conviction based on that evidence reversed, where it was agreed that the defendant had waived his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but had not waived his rights under section 86-701 et seq. (recodified in 2002 as section 86-271 et seq.). State v. Aulrich, 209 Neb. 546, 308 N.W.2d 739 (1981). 3. Generally A juror may reasonably infer that a driver with a possessory interest in a vehicle who is transporting a large quantity of illegal drugs would not invite someone into his or her vehicle who had no knowledge of the driver's drug activities. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). Subsection (6) of this section and section 77-4301(2) address different types of misconduct and are not inconsistent. State v. Garza, 242 Neb. 573, 496 N.W.2d 448 (1993). A party claiming that the sale of a controlled substance was exempt has the burden of proof that an exemption was applicable. State v. Taylor, 221 Neb. 114, 375 N.W.2d 610 (1985). Subsection (6)(a) merely authorizes the issuance of a citation for certain violations; it does not prohibit an arrest for the same violation when otherwise authorized by law. State v. Watts, 209 Neb. 371, 307 N.W.2d 816 (1981). 4. Jury instruction The statutory elements neither solely control nor exclusively dictate whether a lesser-included offense instruction for simple possession is required along with an instruction on possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. State v. Massa, 242 Neb. 70, 493 N.W.2d 175 (1992). 5. Plain view doctrine Plain view doctrine circumvents need for a search warrant when contraband is inadvertently found while arresting officer is legally present at physical examination of accused. State v. Brockman, 231 Neb. 982, 439 N.W.2d 84 (1989). 6. Possession Constructive possession of an illegal substance may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). Possession of a controlled substance is a lesser-included offense of distribution of the controlled substance. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). Possession of an illegal substance can be inferred from a vehicle passenger's proximity to the substance or other circumstantial evidence that affirmatively links the passenger to the substance. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). Under subsection (1) of this section, a defendant possesses a controlled substance when the defendant knows of the nature or character of the substance and its presence and has dominion or control over the substance. State v. Lonnecker, 237 Neb. 207, 465 N.W.2d 737 (1991). Under subsection (1) of this section, a defendant's control or dominion over premises where a controlled substance is located may establish the defendant's constructive possession of the controlled substance. State v. Lonnecker, 237 Neb. 207, 465 N.W.2d 737 (1991). Pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, there is sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled substance when he approaches an undercover officer, asks to buy drugs, physically examines the drugs, and then hands over money to pay for the drugs. State v. Clark, 236 Neb. 475, 461 N.W.2d 576 (1990). 7. Possession with intent to deliver For purposes of subsection (1) of this section, circumstantial evidence that a defendant received controlled substances in amounts larger than are typically associated with personal use can be sufficient to support a finding of intent to distribute. State v. Worthman, 311 Neb. 284, 971 N.W.2d 785 (2022). Circumstantial evidence may support a finding that a defendant intended to distribute, deliver, or dispense a controlled substance. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). Circumstantial evidence to establish possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute or deliver may consist of several factors: the quantity of the substance, the equipment and supplies found with it, the place it was found, the manner of packaging, and the testimony of witnesses experienced and knowledgeable in the field. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). Evidence of the quantity of a controlled substance possessed combined with expert testimony that such quantity indicates an intent to deliver can be sufficient for a jury to infer an intent to deliver. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). When a defendant did not dispute the State's evidence on the separate element of intent to deliver, he was not entitled to an instruction on the lesser-included offense of simple possession. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). Conviction of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance affirmed in case where police officers noticed defendant in bar making a furtive gesture by pulling both hands from underneath bar; the officers subsequently found a bag with 11 snow seals behind the carpet under the bar within arm's distance from defendant; and defendant could not adequately account for the money he had in his possession. State v. Alcorn, 240 Neb. 400, 481 N.W.2d 921 (1992). Possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance is not a victimless crime. State v. Rodgers, 237 Neb. 506, 466 N.W.2d 537 (1991). 8. Sentencing Sentence of 3 to 5 years' imprisonment was not excessive for conviction under subsection (1)(a) of this statute. State v. Hodge and Carpenter, 225 Neb. 94, 402 N.W.2d 867 (1987).

Nearby Sections

15
View on official source ↗

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nebraska § 28-416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ne/28-416.