State v. Stevens

203 N.W.2d 499, 189 Neb. 487, 1973 Neb. LEXIS 831
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 12, 1973
Docket38533
StatusPublished
Cited by38 cases

This text of 203 N.W.2d 499 (State v. Stevens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Stevens, 203 N.W.2d 499, 189 Neb. 487, 1973 Neb. LEXIS 831 (Neb. 1973).

Opinions

Smith, J.

Defendant in Omaha municipal court was convicted of petit larceny and sentenced to imprisonment for 10 days. On appeal to district court a jury found him guilty, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment for 30 days. Defendant appeals. We are told that he was denied his statutory right to a speedy trial.

The progress of the case in district court was as follows:

[488]*488May 27,1971 Bond approved for appeal to district court.

June 1, 1971 Request filed by defendant for a jury trial.

July 21, 1971 Stipulation by counsel to continuance of case to jury panel of August 9.

February 8, 1972 - Motion by defendant to dismiss for denial 'of speedy trial.

February 9, 1972 - Trial.

An accused who is not brought to trial within 6 months is on timely motion to be discharged. In computation of the 6-month period many time frames are excluded. See, §§ 29-1207, 29-1208, and 29-1209, R. S. Supp., 1972, The State impliedly concedes that the trial in district court occurred after expiration o,f the 6-month period. It contends, however, that the statute is not applicable to a prosecution on complaint.

Although statutory requirements for a speedy trial expressly refer only to indictments and informations, the references may encompass complaints. Abbott v. State, 117 Neb. 350, 220 N. W. 578 (1928) (by implication). See, also, Black’s Law Dictionary, “Complaint,” p. 356 (4th Ed., 1951). Inclusion of complaints has been our practice over the years, and nothing in the new statute suggests change. See, State v. Lewis, 177 Neb. 173, 128 N. W. 2d 610 (1964); Abbott v. State, supra; Glebe v. State, 106 Neb. 251, 183 N. W. 295 (1921).

The district court erred in overruling defendant’s motion to dismiss. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that defendant be discharged.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Williams
987 N.W.2d 613 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2023)
State v. Chapman
307 Neb. 443 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2020)
State v. Schanaman
835 N.W.2d 66 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2013)
State v. Vrtiska
418 N.W.2d 758 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1988)
State v. Frazier
470 A.2d 1269 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1984)
State v. Johnson
268 N.W.2d 85 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1978)
State v. Born
212 N.W.2d 581 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1973)
State v. Stevens
203 N.W.2d 499 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 N.W.2d 499, 189 Neb. 487, 1973 Neb. LEXIS 831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stevens-neb-1973.