State ex. rel. Malone v. Baldonado-Bellamy, 307 Neb. 549

Malone was convicted after a 2017 jury trial and, on direct appeal, believed the bill of exceptions omitted an exchange from his cross-examination.
He requested copies of the trial audio from the court reporter (Baldonado-Bellamy) and the clerk (Friend); the Attorney General’s office declined to treat the request as a public records release but advised Malone he could seek mandamus under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-712.03.
Malone filed a “Complaint for Writ of Mandamus” under the public records statute but did not file a motion with affidavit or a positively verified petition; he attached witness affidavits from trial attendees.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing, then denied relief on the merits, concluding court rules (not the public records statutes) govern access to court reporter materials and bills of exceptions.
On appeal the court reporter and clerk argued the district court lacked jurisdiction because Malone had not complied with the mandamus procedural requirement (motion + affidavit or verified petition).
The Nebraska Supreme Court concluded the mandamus action was never properly begun (no motion/affidavit or verified petition), so the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Malone)	Defendant's Argument (Baldonado-Bellamy / Friend)	Held
Whether court reporter notes/audio from a trial are public records subject to the Nebraska Public Records Act	Malone: audio and notes are public records under § 84-712.01(1) and he is entitled to copies	Defendants: access to such materials is governed by Supreme Court rules and the bill-of-exceptions process, not the public records statutes	Not reached on the merits — Supreme Court dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the mandamus action was not properly begun
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Malone’s mandamus petition despite procedural defects	Malone: procedural defect cured by full evidentiary hearing and sworn testimony; public records provision authorizes mandamus under § 84-712.03	Defendants: jurisdictional statutes require a motion with affidavit or a positively verified petition under §§ 25-2156–25-2169 and § 25-2160; Malone did neither	Held: Jurisdictional requirements are mandatory; failure to file a motion + affidavit or a positively verified petition meant the action was not begun, so the district court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal is dismissed

State ex rel. Van Cleave v. City of No. Platte, 213 Neb. 426 (verification or motion with affidavit required before issuing mandamus)
Little v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 179 Neb. 655 (mandamus action not begun until motion+affidavit or positively verified petition filed)
State ex rel. Krieger v. Bd. of Supervisors, 171 Neb. 117 (summary of statutory mandamus procedure and alternative writ practice)
State v. Harrington, 78 Neb. 395 (court has no power to issue peremptory writ absent proper filing)
In re App. No. C-4973 of Skrdlant, 305 Neb. 635 (jurisdictional questions without factual disputes are reviewed de novo)
State ex rel. BH Media Group v. Frakes, 305 Neb. 780 (public-records mandamus jurisdiction is governed by § 84-712.03)
State v. McGuire, 301 Neb. 895 (appellate court lacks power to decide merits when trial court lacked jurisdiction)
DeLima v. Tsevi, 301 Neb. 933 (subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver)