Criminal Law: Courts: Appeal and Error. In
an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the
district court acts as an intermediate court of appeals, and
its review is limited to an examination of the record for
error or abuse of discretion.
Courts: Appeal and Error. Both the district
court and a higher appellate court generally review appeals
from the county court for error appearing on the record.
Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing
a judgment for errors appearing on the record, an appellate
court's inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the
law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither
arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.
Pretrial Procedure: Appeal and Error. Trial
courts have broad discretion with respect to sanctions
involving discovery procedures, and their rulings thereon
will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of
Criminal Law: Pretrial Procedure. Discovery
in a criminal case is generally controlled by either a
statute or court rule.
from the District Court for Gage County: Julie D. Smith,
J. Mercure, of Nestor & Mercure, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss for
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, and
Neb. 67] HEAVICAN, C.J.
J. Hatfield was convicted of misdemeanor driving under the
influence (DUI). His conviction and sentence were affirmed by
the district court, sitting as an intermediate court of
appeals. He appeals. We affirm.
was convicted in the county court for Gage County of DUI and
appealed that conviction to the district court for Gage
County. The district court reversed the county court's
judgment based not on the arguments made by Hatfield, but
instead upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in
Birchfield v. North Dakota. This court reviewed that
decision and concluded that the good faith exception to the
exclusionary rule applied to a pre-Birchfield
warrantless blood draw and that the results of Hatfield's
blood test were therefore admissible. As such, we found that the
district court, sitting as an appellate court, erred in
reversing Hatfield's conviction and vacating his
sentence. We remanded the cause for the district court to
consider Hatfield's original errors.
remand, the district court considered Hatfield's
assignment of error alleging that the county court erred in
failing to exclude evidence that was offered by the State in
violation of both the court's June 29, 2015, order of
discovery and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 (Reissue 2016).
facts relating to this discovery dispute are as follows: The
county court entered an order of discovery on June 29, 2015.
That order was in response to an oral motion made at a
pretrial hearing. The State had already filed a notice on
February 3, 2015, indicating that it had complied with
discovery consisting of 51 pages of documents and that other