Nebraska Statutes
§ 29-1816 — Arraignment of accused; when considered waived; accused younger than eighteen years of age; move court to waive jurisdiction to juvenile court; findings for decision; transfer to juvenile court; effect; appeal; admission, confession, or statement made by the accused; inadmissible; when
Nebraska § 29-1816
JurisdictionNebraska
Ch. 29Criminal Procedure
This text of Nebraska § 29-1816 (Arraignment of accused; when considered waived; accused younger than eighteen years of age; move court to waive jurisdiction to juvenile court; findings for decision; transfer to juvenile court; effect; appeal; admission, confession, or statement made by the accused; inadmissible; when) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1816 (2026).
Text
(1)(a) The accused may be arraigned in county court or district court:
(i)If the accused was eighteen years of age or older when the alleged offense was committed;
(ii)If the accused was younger than eighteen years of age and was fourteen years of age or older when an alleged offense punishable as a Class I, IA, IB, IC, ID, II, or IIA felony was committed; or
(iii)If the alleged offense is a traffic offense as defined in section 43-245 .
(b)Arraignment in county court or district court shall be by reading to the accused the complaint or information, unless the reading is waived by the accused when the nature of the charge is made known to him or her. The accused shall then be asked whether he or she is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged. If the accused appears in person and b
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
State v. Bluett
889 N.W.2d 83 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2016)
In re Interest of Tyrone K.
887 N.W.2d 489 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2016)
In re Interest of Sandrino T.
888 N.W.2d 371 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2016)
State v. Alexander
339 N.W.2d 297 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Dominguez
290 Neb. 477 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2015)
State v. Hernandez
689 N.W.2d 579 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2004)
State v. Aldana Cardenas
990 N.W.2d 915 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2023)
State v. Esai P.
28 Neb. Ct. App. 226 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Ice
509 N.W.2d 407 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1994)
In re Interest of Steven S.
299 Neb. 447 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2018)
State v. Johnson
670 N.W.2d 802 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2003)
State v. Jeremiah T.
319 Neb. 133 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2025)
State v. A.D.
305 Neb. 154 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2020)
In re Interest of Jorge A.
990 N.W.2d 560 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Dragoo
758 N.W.2d 60 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2008)
State v. Burris
30 Neb. Ct. App. 109 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2021)
In re Estate of Guenther
318 Neb. 454 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2025)
In re Interest of Aaden S.
33 Neb. Ct. App. 777 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2025)
In re Interest of Hailey G.
(Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. Adams
(Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2020)
Legislative History
Source: G.S.1873, c. 58, § 448, p. 822; R.S.1913, § 9092; C.S.1922, § 10117; Laws 1925, c. 105, § 1, p. 294; C.S.1929, § 29-1815; R.S.1943, § 29-1816; Laws 1947, c. 103, § 1(1), p. 291; Laws 1974, LB 620, § 6; Laws 1975, LB 288, § 2; Laws 1987, LB 34, § 1; Laws 2008, LB1014, § 16; Laws 2010, LB800, § 5; Laws 2014, LB464, § 4; Laws 2015, LB265, § 1; Laws 2015, LB605, § 59; Laws 2017, LB11, § 1; Laws 2021, LB307, § 1; Laws 2024, LB184, § 1; Laws 2024, LB1051, § 1.
Cross References: Nebraska Juvenile Code, see section 43-2,129.
Annotations: 1. Arraignment 2. Jurisdiction to juvenile court 3. Miscellaneous 1. Arraignment Arraignment complied with statute. Lingo v. Hann, 161 Neb. 67, 71 N.W.2d 716 (1955). Where accused goes to trial without being arraigned and failed to demand formal arraignment, he waives his rights. Maher v. State, 144 Neb. 463, 13 N.W.2d 641 (1944); Hill v. State, 116 Neb. 73, 215 N.W. 789 (1927). Issues are not joined until arraignment and plea to information; no jeopardy in absence of plea. Gragg v. State, 112 Neb. 732, 201 N.W. 338 (1924). Under prior statute, reading of indictment could not be waived in felony case, and failure to arraign was reversible error. Popel v. State, 105 Neb. 348, 180 N.W. 570 (1920). Formal arraignment is not necessary in misdemeanor. Kruger v. State, 1 Neb. 365 (1871). 2. Jurisdiction to juvenile court Pursuant to subdivision (1)(a)(ii) of this section, whether a juvenile court has jurisdiction over a person is determined not by the person's age at the time of the offense, but, rather, by the person's age at the time he or she is charged for the offense. State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418, 972 N.W.2d 907 (2022). County courts have not been given authority to decide motions to transfer to juvenile court in cases in which they lack jurisdiction to try the case. State v. A.D., 305 Neb. 154, 939 N.W.2d 484 (2020). Pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, alleged juvenile offenders have the ability to move for a transfer of their case from a county or district court to a juvenile court and this motion must be made within 30 days after arraignment unless otherwise permitted by the court for good cause shown. State v. Uhing, 301 Neb. 768, 919 N.W.2d 909 (2018). Subsection (2) and subdivision (3)(c) of this section provide that an alleged juvenile offender can move for transfer to a juvenile court within 30 days of the juvenile's arraignment and that either the juvenile or the State can appeal an order on the motion within 10 days of its entry. State v. Uhing, 301 Neb. 768, 919 N.W.2d 909 (2018). Pursuant to subdivision (3)(a) of this section, after considering the evidence and the criteria set forth in section 43-276, the court shall transfer the case to juvenile court unless a sound basis exists for retaining the case in county court or district court. State v. Tyler P., 299 Neb. 959, 911 N.W.2d 260 (2018). Pursuant to subdivision (3)(b) of this section, the court is required to set forth findings for the reason for its decision. State v. Tyler P., 299 Neb. 959, 911 N.W.2d 260 (2018). The general rule is that on request by a juvenile, the district court must transfer a juvenile case involving a felony from district court to juvenile court, unless a sound basis for retaining jurisdiction exists. In deciding whether to grant a requested waiver of the district court's jurisdiction and to transfer the case to juvenile court, the district court having jurisdiction over a pending criminal prosecution is required to consider the juvenile's request in light of the criteria set forth in section 43-276. State v. Reynolds, 246 Neb. 802, 523 N.W.2d 377 (1994). In deciding whether to grant a requested waiver of jurisdiction and transfer proceedings to juvenile court pursuant to this section, the court having jurisdiction over a pending criminal prosecution must carefully consider the juvenile's request in light of the criteria set forth in section 43-276. State v. Nevels, 235 Neb. 39, 453 N.W.2d 579 (1990). This section and section 43-276 provide a balancing test in which public protection and security are weighed against practical, and not problematical, rehabilitation in determining whether there should be a waiver of jurisdiction over a criminal proceeding to the juvenile court. State v. Trevino, 230 Neb. 494, 432 N.W.2d 503 (1988). This section and section 43-276 involve a balancing test, namely, public protection and societal security weighed against practical and not problematic rehabilitation, in determining whether there should be a waiver of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings with a transfer to the juvenile court. Where the record supported the trial court's findings that the crime was violent, that the defendant may require treatment beyond the age of majority, that defendant's rehabilitative needs were beyond the scope of the juvenile court, and that more protection of the public was required than would be available in juvenile court, the district court did not abuse its discretion in retaining jurisdiction. State v. Ryan, 226 Neb. 59, 409 N.W.2d 579 (1987). District court properly refused transfer of minor to juvenile court after a hearing and issuing written findings enumerating the basis for denying transfer. State v. Stewart, 197 Neb. 497, 250 N.W.2d 849 (1977). A judgment will not be reversed for failure of trial court to set forth findings for its reason to overrule a motion to transfer case to juvenile court where defendant failed to call trial court's attention to the requirement of the statute. State v. Highly, 195 Neb. 498, 238 N.W.2d 909 (1976). The district court abused its discretion in granting the transfer of two criminal cases to the juvenile court because there was substantial evidence supporting the retention of the cases in the district court for the sake of public safety and societal security, and there was a lack of evidence demonstrating that any further rehabilitation through the juvenile system would be practical and nonproblematical in the limited time left under the juvenile court's jurisdiction. State v. Esai P., 28 Neb. App. 226, 942 N.W.2d 416 (2020). For matters initiated in the county or district court, a party can move to transfer to the juvenile court pursuant to subsection (3) of this section. State v. Comer, 26 Neb. App. 270, 918 N.W.2d 13 (2018). The second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon charges filed against a 15-year-old were retained in the district court; the trial court's denial of a motion to transfer to the juvenile court is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Leroux, 26 Neb. App. 76, 916 N.W.2d 903 (2018). 3. Miscellaneous When a defendant appeared, was represented by counsel, and went to trial, the defendant waived any argument that rearraignment was necessary. State v. Hernandez, 268 Neb. 934, 689 N.W.2d 579 (2004). In order to retain jurisdiction pursuant to this section, the district court does not need to resolve every factor in section 43-276 against the juvenile. This section represents the policy decision, made by the Legislature, that decisions made at transfer hearings are to be informed by all of the surrounding circumstances, which may or may not include evidence that is inadmissible at a subsequent criminal trial. State v. McCracken, 260 Neb. 234, 615 N.W.2d 902 (2000). A request to a court to waive jurisdiction to the juvenile court raises a jurisdictional challenge, and a defendant may appeal an unfavorable ruling even after entering a plea of guilty or tendering a plea of no contest. State v. Phinney, 235 Neb. 486, 455 N.W.2d 795 (1990). Section is not applicable to misdemeanors. Wozniak v. State, 103 Neb. 749, 174 N.W. 298 (1919); Burroughs v. State, 94 Neb. 519, 143 N.W. 450 (1913). Right to have complaint read to him in filiation proceeding is waived by defendant by proceeding to trial. McNeal v. Hunter, 72 Neb. 579, 101 N.W. 236 (1904). The statutory amendment providing for interlocutory appeals from an order granting or denying transfer of the case from county or district court to juvenile court became effective August 24, 2017. State v. Leroux, 26 Neb. App. 76, 916 N.W.2d 903 (2018).
Nearby Sections
15
§ 29-1001
Prisoner; where confined§ 29-1002
Repealed. Laws 1998, LB 695, § 10§ 29-1003
Repealed. Laws 1998, LB 695, § 10§ 29-1004
Repealed. Laws 1998, LB 695, § 10§ 29-1005
Repealed. Laws 1998, LB 695, § 10§ 29-1006
Repealed. Laws 1990, LB 829, § 3§ 29-101
Terms, usage§ 29-103
Magistrate, defined§ 29-104
Prosecuting attorney, defined§ 29-108
Signature, how construedCite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Nebraska § 29-1816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ne/29-1816.