§ 29-2207 — Judgment for costs upon conviction; requirement

Nebraska § 29-2207

• Jurisdiction: Nebraska
• Ch. 29: Criminal Procedure

Text

In every case
of conviction of any person for any felony or misdemeanor, it shall be the
duty of the court or magistrate to render judgment for the costs of prosecution
against the person convicted and
remit the assessment as provided in section 33-157 .

Legislative History

Source: G.S.1873, c. 58, § 501, p. 833; R.S.1913, § 9143; C.S.1922, § 10168; C.S.1929, § 29-2208; R.S.1943, § 29-2207; Laws 2010, LB510, § 2. Annotations: A person who is reconvicted after his or her original conviction was reversed on appeal cannot be assessed the costs of the original conviction because the original conviction was nullified and the slate was wiped clean. State v. Kula, 262 Neb. 787, 635 N.W.2d 252 (2001). The independent act considered herein is not unconstitutional for failure to mention in the incidental provision for payment or exemption from payment of costs, nor for failing to refer to and repeal certain other statutes. State ex rel. Douglas v. Gradwohl, 194 Neb. 745, 235 N.W.2d 854 (1975). Defendant is liable for only such costs made by state as there was actual, apparent or probable necessity for incurring, and is limited to costs incurred in establishing his guilt. Biester v. State, 65 Neb. 276, 91 N.W. 416 (1902). It is the duty of court, upon conviction, to render judgment for costs of prosecution; may sentence defendant to imprisonment in county jail until costs are paid or security for payment is given. In re Newton, 39 Neb. 757, 58 N.W. 436 (1894); In re Dobson, 37 Neb. 449, 55 N.W. 1071 (1893). Costs in criminal proceedings are the charges fixed by statute necessarily incurred in the prosecution of one charged with a public offense as compensation to the officers for their services. State v. Smith, 13 Neb. App. 477, 695 N.W.2d 440 (2005). Expenses of extradition, in the amount fixed by section 29-752, are taxable costs. State v. Smith, 13 Neb. App. 477, 695 N.W.2d 440 (2005). In determining what costs are actually, apparently, or probably necessary, the trial court is given discretion in determining those costs, and such determination will be reversed or modified only for an abuse of discretion. State v. Smith, 13 Neb. App. 477, 695 N.W.2d 440 (2005).