State v. Billingsley
309 Neb. 616
| Neb. | 2021Background:
- Information filed Sept. 3, 2019 charging William Billingsley III with first-degree assault, third-degree assault, and disturbing the peace.
- Billingsley filed a plea in abatement (Aug. 28); plea was denied Dec. 5, 2019 — 93 days excluded under § 29-1207(4)(a).
- COVID-19 disrupted court operations: telephonic conferences in April–May 2020; trial originally set for June 30, 2020.
- On June 25, 2020 the prosecutor moved to continue because three treating doctors (material witnesses) were reluctant to appear and the prosecutor tested positive for COVID-19; the court granted the continuance over Billingsley’s objection.
- Billingsley filed a motion for absolute discharge on speedy-trial grounds Aug. 11, 2020; district court denied the motion. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, finding additional excludable time for the State’s continuance request and concluding the discharge motion was premature.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Billingsley was entitled to absolute discharge under the statutory 6-month speedy-trial rule | Billingsley: State failed to meet its burden to show excludable delay for June 1–26, 2020; trial deadline therefore passed and discharge was required | State: Excludable periods include plea in abatement, COVID-related scheduling delays, and the continuance granted after prosecutor’s June 25 affidavit — adding sufficient days to keep the prosecution timely | Held: Affirmed denial of discharge — court found an additional 46 days excludable for the continuance under § 29-1207(4)(c), so the State met its burden and Billingsley’s motion was premature |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835 (standard of review for speedy-trial dismissal)
- State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443 (method for computing speedy-trial periods)
- State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844 (effect of excluded periods extending trial deadline)
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (State bears burden to prove excluded periods)
- State v. Baird, 259 Neb. 245 (evidentiary limits on court-found facts in speedy-trial context)
- State v. Rhoads, 11 Neb. App. 731 (similar evidentiary discussions in speedy-trial rulings)
- State v. Roundtree, 11 Neb. App. 628 (materiality of medical-witness testimony)
- State v. Turner, 252 Neb. 620 (continuance discretion and appellate review)
- State v. Robertson, 294 Neb. 29 (exceptional-circumstances basis for continuance exclusion)
- State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231 (correct-result doctrine)