State v. Billingsley, 309 Neb. 616

Background

Sept. 3, 2019: State filed information charging William Billingsley III with first-degree assault, third-degree assault, and disturbing the peace; Billingsley had filed a plea in abatement on Aug. 28.
Court denied the plea in abatement Dec. 5, 2019, and set arraignment and later scheduled pretrial conferences; COVID-19 caused telephonic conferences and delayed jury assembly.
Trial was set for June 30, 2020. On June 25, 2020 the prosecutor filed a continuance motion (with affidavit) seeking subpoenas/court orders for three treating doctors; the prosecutor tested positive for COVID-19 and asked for a continuance.
The district court granted the State’s continuance over Billingsley’s objection and indicated any delay would be taxed against the State for speedy-trial purposes; Billingsley moved for absolute discharge on Aug. 11, 2020.
The district court calculated the original speedy-trial deadline as March 3, 2020, excluded 93 days for the plea in abatement and additional COVID-related/continuance periods to reach an August 27 (district court) deadline; the Supreme Court instead found a dispositive excludable continuance of June 26–Aug. 11 (46 days) under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(c), yielding 195 excludable days and a Sept. 14, 2020 deadline.
Supreme Court affirmed denial of Billingsley’s motion for absolute discharge, holding the State met its burden to justify excluded time (prosecutor’s affidavit and exceptional circumstances).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Billingsley was entitled to absolute discharge under Nebraska’s six-month statutory speedy-trial rule	Billingsley: deadline expired (State failed to try him within six months); excluded days claimed by State were not proven	State: excludable periods (plea in abatement, COVID-related delays, and continuance for unavailable medical witnesses due to prosecutor’s COVID-19 diagnosis) extended the deadline	Held: Denied. Court found excludable periods (including June 26–Aug. 11 continuance) valid; State met its burden; new deadline was Sept. 14, 2020, so motion was premature
Whether the continuance granted June 26, 2020, qualified as excludable under § 29-1207(4)(c)(i) (unavailable material evidence with due diligence)	Billingsley: court record alone insufficient; State failed to present admissible evidence proving due diligence/witness unavailability	State: prosecutor’s affidavit showed materiality of doctors, attempts to secure testimony, need for court orders, and that prosecutor’s COVID-19 diagnosis prevented completion	Held: Affidavit satisfied § 29-1207(4)(c)(i); continuance properly granted and excludable
Whether the continuance qualified under § 29-1207(4)(c)(ii) (additional time justified by exceptional circumstances)	Billingsley: extraordinary circumstances not shown or not proven by State	State: prosecutor’s positive COVID-19 test 5 days before trial and need to secure substitute counsel and out-of-state witnesses were exceptional	Held: Court concluded exceptional circumstances existed and discretion to grant continuance was not abused
Whether the district court’s possible alternative reasoning undermines the correct result	Billingsley: challenged the good-cause finding for Apr–June exclusion and evidentiary basis for some exclusions	State: relied on June 26–Aug 11 exclusion to establish harmless or dispositive basis	Held: Even if some reasoning was erroneous, the correct result stands because an adequate excludable period (June 26–Aug. 11) supports denial of discharge

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835, 957 N.W.2d 143 (2021) (speedy-trial fact findings reviewed for clear error)
State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443, 949 N.W.2d 490 (2020) (method for computing six‑month speedy‑trial period)
State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844, 932 N.W.2d 64 (2019) (effect of excluded periods on speedy‑trial deadline)
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (2009) (pleas in abatement toll speedy‑trial time until disposition)
State v. Turner, 252 Neb. 620, 564 N.W.2d 231 (1997) (continuance rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29, 881 N.W.2d 864 (2016) (§ 29‑1207(4)(c)(ii) exceptional circumstances analysis)
State v. Baird, 259 Neb. 245, 609 N.W.2d 349 (2000) (on evidentiary requirements for proving excluded periods)
State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231, 888 N.W.2d 153 (2016) (correct result rule when lower court’s reasoning is defective)