Judgments: Speedy Trial: Appeal and Error.
a trial court's determination as to whether charges
should be dismissed on speedy trial grounds is a factual
question which will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly
Statutes: Appeal and Error.
interpretation presents a question of law, which an appellate
court reviews independently of the lower court's
speedy trial statutes provide in part that every person
indicted or informed against for any offense shall be brought
to trial within 6 months.
4.___. In computing whether a trial is timely, certain
periods of delay are excluded from the calculation, including
the time from filing until final disposition of pretrial
motions of the defendant, including motions to suppress
Speedy Trial: Motions to Suppress.
of whether the speedy trial clock is tolled during the
State's interlocutory appeal from a suppression order
does not turn on whether the appeal was successful or why it
was dismissed, but, rather, on whether it was authorized.
the State is statutorily authorized to take an interlocutory
appeal from a district court's order granting a
defendant's pretrial motion in a criminal case, then such
an appeal is an expected and reasonable consequence of the
defendant's motion and the time attributable to the
appeal, regardless of the course the appeal takes, is
properly excluded from the speedy trial computation under
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2014).
Motions to Suppress: Speedy Trial: Appeal and
Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Reissue 2008) expressly authorizes
the State to appeal from a district court's order
granting a defendant's motion to suppress, [294 Neb. 748]
so such an appeal is an expected and reasonable consequence
of the defendant's motion to suppress and final
disposition of the motion to suppress under Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 29-1207(4)(a) (Cum. Supp. 2014) does not occur until
the State's appeal is decided.
from the District Court for Garden County: Derek C. Weimer,
S. Breen, of Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, for
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Stacy M. Foust for
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and
Hood appeals from a district court order denying his motion
for absolute discharge. The issue presented is whether to
exclude from the speedy trial calculation time attributable
to the State's unsuccessful appeal from an order
sustaining Hood's motion to suppress evidence. We
conclude the speedy trial clock was ...