State v. Guyott

CourtNebraska Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHeard before WHITE; WHITE
CitationState v. Guyott, 239 N.W.2d 781, 195 Neb. 593 (Neb. 1976)
Decision Date11 March 1976
Docket NumberNo. 40302,40302
PartiesSTATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Delbert GUYOTT, a/k/a Dale, Appellant.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Section 28--4,115(13), R.S.Supp., 1974, provides that deliver or delivery shall mean the actual, constructive, or attempted transfer from one person to another of a controlled substance, whether or not there is an agency relationship.

2. To sustain a conviction under section 28--4,125(1)(a), R.S.Supp., 1974, it is not necessary for the State to show actual physical transfer of a controlled substance from the defendant.

Walter J. Matejka, Omaha, for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., Gary B. Schneider, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, CLINTON and BRODKEY, JJ.

WHITE, Chief Justice.

The defendant was indicted for violation of section 28--4,125(1)(a), R.S.Supp., 1974, which makes it 'unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally * * * (t)o manufacture, distribute, deliver, or dispense, a controlled substance.' The defendant pled not guilty. The case was tried to a jury, and the defendant was found guilty. The District Court sentenced the defendant to a period of 1 to 3 years imprisonment in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex and ordered him to pay the costs of prosecution. The defendant appeals. We affirm the judgment and sentence of the District Court.

As error it is alleged that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence. The evidence showed the following. Officer Cramer, an undercover officer for the Omaha Metro Area Narcotics squad, secured a position as a bouncer at an Omaha hotel lounge. The only person who knew he was with the police was the lounge's manager. The defendant was introduced to Cramer by the manager, who advised Cramer that the defendant had some 'speed.' Cramer and the defendant then stepped out into the hotel lobby. Cramer testified that the defendant told him that the narcotics Cramer wanted were in a wastebasket in the girls' restroom in the hotel. Cramer testified that the defendant told him there were 400 'hits' of 'speed' in the restroom and that Cramer could have them for $22 per 100 'hits.' Cramer went to the restroom indicated and found, in a brown paper bag, in the wastebasket, approximately 400 tablets of suspected amphetamines wrapped in four plastic bags. After retrieving the paper bags, Cramer returned upstairs and gave the defendant $88.

An essential...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
11 cases
  • Moore v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 2002
    ...v. State, 608 S.W.2d 205, 209-10 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) (adopting State v. Ellis, 161 W.Va. 40, 239 S.E.2d 670 (1977); State v. Guyott, 195 Neb. 593, 239 N.W.2d 781 (1976)). Therefore, by the time Whaley was decided, two years after the court had originally defined "constructive transfer" in ......
  • Daniels v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 1, 1988
    ...the instance or direction of the individual accused of such constructive transfer." The Rasmussen Court also reviewed State v. Guyott, 195 Neb. 593, 239 N.W.2d 781 (1976), and State v. McHorse, 85 N.M. 753, 517 P.2d 75 (Ct.App.1973), which upheld the transfers in those cases to be construct......
  • Daniels v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 30, 1984
    ...of the phrase and turned to decisions of other states for guidance, citing State v. Ellis, 239 S.E.2d 670 (W.Va.1977); State v. Guyott, 195 Neb. 593, 239 N.W.2d 781 (1976); and State v. McHorse, 85 N.M. 753, 517 P.2d 75 (1973). In Ellis, supra, at 673, the West Virginia Court We interpret a......
  • Warren v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 18, 2000
    ...the court consulted other jurisdictions that had adopted statutes from the Uniform Controlled Substances Act and cited State v. Guyott, 239 N.W.2d 781 (Neb. 1976), as illustrative of a constructive transfer. See Rasmussen v. State, 608 S.W.2d at 209-10. In Guyott, the Nebraska Supreme Court......
  • Get Started for Free