Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court held that setting an initial trial date outside the statutory six-month speedy-trial period, with the defendant's consent, does not constitute a continuance under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(b). The court also rejected the State's invited-error argument and affirmed the defendant's absolute discharge because the State failed to establish an applicable excludable period. The court overruled the State's exception proceeding.
Holdings
- A continuance under § 29-1207(4)(b) is the postponement of a proceeding previously set for one date to a future date. Setting an initial trial date outside the statutory 6-month period is not a continuance, even when the defendant or defense counsel agrees that the proposed date works, and the resulting period is not excludable under § 29-1207(4)(b).
- A defendant's consent to an initial trial date set outside the statutory 6-month period does not invoke the waiver provision in the last sentence of § 29-1207(4)(b). That provision applies when a defendant requests a continuance that moves a trial date originally set within the statutory period to a date beyond that period.
- The invited error doctrine did not bar Space from seeking absolute discharge. Her counsel did not invite the trial court to commit a speedy-trial error by answering a scheduling question affirmatively when neither the State nor the court raised the speedy-trial deadline.
- Because the State failed to bring Space to trial within 6 months after the information was filed, as extended by the single established excludable day, Space was entitled to absolute discharge under § 29-1208.
Questions Presented
- Whether an initial trial date set outside Nebraska's 6-month statutory speedy-trial period becomes an excludable period of delay under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(b) merely because the defendant or defense counsel agrees that the date works.
- Whether the defendant's agreement to an initial trial date beyond the statutory deadline constituted a continuance, a statutory waiver, or invited error preventing absolute discharge.
- Whether the district court erred in granting absolute discharge under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1208.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (25)
- State v. Abernathy, 310 Neb. 880, 969 N.W.2d 871 (2022)(followed)
- State v. Chase, 310 Neb. 160, 964 N.W.2d 254 (2021)(followed)
- State v. Coomes, 309 Neb. 749, 962 N.W.2d 510 (2021)(followed and distinguished)
- State v. Gnanaprakasam, 310 Neb. 519, 967 N.W.2d 89 (2021)(followed)
- State v. Washington, 269 Neb. 728, 695 N.W.2d 438 (2005)(followed)
- State v. Covey, 267 Neb. 210, 673 N.W.2d 208 (2004)(followed)
- State v. Craven, 17 Neb. App. 127, 757 N.W.2d 132 (2008)(distinguished)
- State v. Liming, 306 Neb. 475, 945 N.W.2d 882 (2020)(followed and distinguished)
- State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844, 932 N.W.2d 64 (2019)(followed and distinguished)
- Nebraska Republican Party v. Shively, 311 Neb. 160, 971 N.W.2d 128 (2022)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 25.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…