State v. Abernathy, 969 N.W.2d 871

On September 10, 2019, Abernathy was charged with first-degree sexual assault and filed multiple pretrial motions and an October 2019 oral continuance request.
The district court sua sponte continued the March 18, 2020 trial date and again in April 2020, citing the COVID-19 pandemic and related public-health and judicial orders.
On August 31, 2020, Abernathy moved for absolute discharge, asserting violations of statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights; a hearing was held September 29, 2020.
After the hearing, the State filed a “Motion to Establish Good Cause” and submitted evidence (governor’s emergency proclamation, CDC guidance, local judicial orders excusing jurors, affidavits) supporting COVID-related continuances.
The district court received the evidence, found March 18–July 1, 2020 excluded for "good cause" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(f), concluded time remained on the statutory speedy-trial clock, and overruled Abernathy’s statutory and constitutional discharge claims.
Abernathy appealed; the Supreme Court affirmed the statutory ruling and dismissed review of the constitutional claim for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred in denying discharge under statutory speedy-trial statutes (good-cause exclusion of March 18–July 1, 2020)	Abernathy: COVID continuances were not shown to be "good cause"; State should have presented supporting evidence before his discharge motion and record lacks adequate proof	State: Evidence supporting good cause may be presented at the discharge hearing; local/state/Court orders and affidavits justify excluding the March–July period	Affirmed. Court held the district court did not err; precedent (Chase, Brown) permits presenting evidence at the discharge hearing and supports finding COVID-19 continuances excluded as good cause.
Whether the denial of a motion for discharge on constitutional speedy-trial grounds is immediately appealable and reviewable here	Abernathy: Constitutional claim should be reviewable now along with his statutory claim	State: Denial of constitutional speedy-trial claim is not an appealable final order standing alone and does not affect the final statutory ruling under § 25-1902(1)	Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The Court held pretrial denial of constitutional speedy-trial discharge is not an order affecting a substantial right in a special proceeding and thus not immediately appealable; it did not reach the constitutional merits.

State v. Chase, 964 N.W.2d 254 (Neb. 2021) (evidence of good cause for COVID continuances may be presented at a discharge hearing)
State v. Brown, 964 N.W.2d 682 (Neb. 2021) (district court did not clearly err finding COVID-related continuances constituted good cause)
State v. Lovvorn, 932 N.W.2d 64 (Neb. 2019) (speedy-trial dismissal determinations are factual and reviewed for clear error)
State v. Liming, 945 N.W.2d 882 (Neb. 2020) (method for calculating statutory speedy-trial deadline)
State v. Wilson, 724 N.W.2d 99 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006) (Court of Appeals: denial of constitutional speedy-trial discharge is not an immediately appealable order)
United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850 (1978) (constitutional speedy-trial dismissal orders are generally not subject to interlocutory appeal)