Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 28
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1439.01 (2026)

Uniform Controlled Substances Act; conviction; uncorroborated testimony; how treated

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 5× “33 Savage argues that the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty verdict because there was no corroborating testimony of Savage's guilt as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1439.01 (Reissue 2016) and possession thus could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Johnson, 627 N.W.2d 753 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 12× “In connection with our consideration of the sufficiency of evidence in this case, we note that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1439.01 (Reissue 1995) provides: “No conviction for an offense punishable under any provision of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act shall be based solely upon…”
State v. Kuta, 686 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 5× “The court then proceeded to conduct a sentencing hearing and sentenced Kuta on each conviction. Kuta timely appeals.”
State v. Kramer, 469 N.W.2d 785 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 4× “” The record shows that Michael Drugsvold testified at trial that in December 1987 he had agreed to work with the Nebraska State Patrol as a confidential informant.”
State v. Jimenez, 530 N.W.2d 257 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “Jimenez alleges that he was convicted solely on the uncorroborated testimony of a "cooperating individual," in violation of Neb.Rev. Stat. § 28-1439.01 (Cum.Supp.1994).”
State v. Goodro, 556 N.W.2d 630 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 4× “More specifically, Goodro alleges that the convictions were based on the uncorroborated testimony of a cooperating individual, contrary to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1439.01 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Taylor, 375 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 3× “” Taylor was convicted under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-416 (l)(a) (Reissue 1979) for knowingly or intentionally delivering the controlled substance of marijuana.”
State v. Palser, 469 N.W.2d 753 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 4× “” Defendant’s claim is based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1439.01 (Reissue 1989), “No conviction for an offense punishable under sections 28-401 to 28-438 shall be based solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of a cooperating individual.”
State v. Jimenez, 533 N.W.2d 913 (Neb. 1995). · cites it 3× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1439.01 (Cum. Supp. 1994) provides: “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.”
State v. Franco, 932 N.W.2d 84 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR On appeal, Franco argues generally that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict.”
State v. Cain, 393 N.W.2d 727 (Neb. 1986). · cites it 2× “The last issue in connection with this first assignment of error rests upon the language of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1439.01 (Reissue 1985), which states: “No conviction for an offense punishable under sections 28-401 to 28-438 shall be based solely upon the uncorroborated testimony…”
State v. Knoefler, 418 N.W.2d 217 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 2× “§ 28-1439.01 (Reissue 1985), and (2) that the district court abused its discretion by denying probation and incarcerating the defendant.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.