State v. Chapman

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Nebraska Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review the denial of Chapman's nonfrivolous motion for absolute discharge on statutory speedy-trial grounds.
2. Whether the time during which Chapman's arrest warrant was pending was excludable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(d).
3. Whether the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that any period was excludable from the statutory speedy-trial calculation.
4. Whether Chapman was entitled to absolute discharge and dismissal because he was not brought to trial within six months of the filing of the complaint.
5. Whether the county court denied Chapman a fair hearing through bias or prejudice.

Holdings

1. An order denying a criminal defendant's nonfrivolous motion for absolute discharge on statutory speedy-trial grounds affects a substantial right in a special proceeding and is final and appealable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902(1)(b). Chapman's motion was nonfrivolous and meritorious, so the Nebraska Supreme Court had jurisdiction.
2. Nebraska's statutory speedy-trial provisions apply to prosecutions commenced by the filing of a complaint in county court, even though the statutes expressly refer to indictments and informations.
3. To calculate Nebraska's statutory speedy-trial deadline, the court must exclude the day the complaint was filed, count forward six months, back up one day, and add any properly established excludable periods under § 29-1207(4).
4. When a defendant was not tried within six months, the State bears the burden of proving that one or more statutory excluded periods apply, and it must prove the existence of excluded time by a preponderance of the evidence.
5. The pendency of an arrest warrant does not automatically constitute excluded time under § 29-1207(4)(d). At minimum, the State must prove diligent efforts to secure the defendant's presence through service of the warrant; and on this record, the State also failed to prove that Chapman received notice of the scheduled arraignment.
6. Because Chapman was not brought to trial within six months of the filing of the complaint and the State failed to prove any excludable period, he was entitled to absolute discharge under § 29-1208, requiring dismissal of the complaint.

Key quotations

Factual background

The State filed a theft complaint against Ellis Chapman in Hall County Court on March 29, 2017, and scheduled an arraignment for April 12. Chapman did not appear, the county court issued an arrest warrant, and Chapman was not arrested until April 24, 2019. At the speedy-trial hearing, the State introduced the warrant, extension orders, and an undelivered or otherwise unverified letter concerning the arraignment, but offered no evidence of efforts to serve the warrant or evidence that Chapman received notice of the arraignment.

Procedural history

The State charged Chapman by complaint in county court. After Chapman was arrested more than two years later, he moved for absolute discharge under Nebraska's speedy-trial statutes. The county court denied the motion, finding that the period during which the arrest warrant was pending was excludable; the district court affirmed. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State failed to prove any excludable time and directing the district court to reverse the county court and order discharge and dismissal.

Remand instructions

Remand to the district court with directions to reverse the county court's order and remand to the county court with directions to grant Chapman absolute discharge and dismiss the complaint.