Any dealer violating sections 77-4301 to 77-4316 shall be subject to a penalty of one hundred percent of the tax in addition to the tax imposed by section 77-4303. The penalty shall be collected as part of the tax.
A dealer distributing or possessing marijuana or a controlled substance without affixing the official stamp, label, or other indicium shall be guilty of a Class IV felony. Notwithstanding any other provision of the criminal laws of this state, an indictment may be found and filed or an information or complaint filed upon any criminal offense specified in this section in the proper court within six years after the commission of such offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case:
State v. Utter, 641 N.W.2d 624 (Neb. 2002).
State v. Utter, 641 N.W.2d 624 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 9× “2000) and one count of failure to affix a tax stamp in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4309 (Reissue 1996).”
State v. Detweiler, 544 N.W.2d 83 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 4× “1994), which states in part: A dealer distributing or possessing marijuana or a controlled substance without affixing the official stamp, label, or other indicium shall be guilty of a Class IV felony.”
State v. Garza, 496 N.W.2d 448 (Neb. 1993).
· cites it 4× “On count II, a violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4309 (Reissue 1990), Garza was sentenced to 1 year’s imprisonment, the sentence to run concurrently with the count I sentence, and was required to pay the costs of prosecution.”
State v. Warlick, 956 N.W.2d 269 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 2× “61 We have held under the relevant statutory language, read as a whole, that certain crimes involving “possession,” such as being a person who “uses a firearm . . . to commit any felony” or who unlawfully “possesses a firearm .”
State v. Bensing, 547 N.W.2d 464 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 3× “1994); (2) knowingly or intentionally possessing more than 1 pound of marijuana, in violation of § 28-416(10); and (3) being a dealer possessing a controlled substance without a tax stamp, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4309 (Cum. Supp. 1994).”
State v. Anderson, 605 N.W.2d 124 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 2× “, marijuana, with intent to deliver, pursuant to § 28-416(l)(a), and possession of marijuana without a tax stamp, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4309 (Reissue 1996).”
State v. McGinnis, 608 N.W.2d 605 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “§ 28-416 (l)(a) (Reissue 1995), and possession of marijuana or a controlled substance without the official indicium, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4309 (Reissue 1996).”
State v. Stubblefield, 543 N.W.2d 743 (Neb. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 77-4309(1). The penalty shall be collected as part of the tax.”
State v. Obst, 669 N.W.2d 688 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “A-02-1298, Spaulding was charged by a separate information with unlawful possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, a Class III felony in violation of § 28-416(1)(a), and distribution or possession of marijuana without affixing a drug tax stamp, a Class IV…”
State v. Osborne, 986 N.W.2d 65 (Neb. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Constructive possession, in contrast, may be proved by mere ownership, dominion, or control over contraband itself, coupled with the intent to exercise control over the same.”
State v. Warlick, 308 Neb. 656 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 2× “61 We have held under the relevant statutory language, read as a whole, that certain crimes involving “possession,” such as being a person who “uses a firearm . . . to commit any felony” or who unlawfully “possesses a firearm .”
State v. Bourquin, No. A-24-349 (Neb. Ct. App. Jan. 28, 2025).
· cites it 3× “2022); and failure to affix a drug tax stamp, a Class IV felony, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4309 (Reissue 2018).”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4309(1): 1 case
State v. Stubblefield, 543 N.W.2d 743 (Neb. 1996).
“§ 77-4309(1). The penalty shall be collected as part of the tax.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-4309(2): 1 case
State v. Stubblefield, 543 N.W.2d 743 (Neb. 1996).
“§ 77-4309(1). The penalty shall be collected as part of the tax.”
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.