State v. Blocher
951 N.W.2d 499
Neb.2020Background
- Blocher was charged in Lancaster County with possession of methamphetamine by information filed Feb. 7, 2019; pretrial motions filed Feb. 11 and resolved Feb. 19.
- She was ordered to appear for a pretrial jury docket call on April 17, 2019, but was arrested in Douglas County for shoplifting on April 16 and did not appear.
- Lancaster County issued a bench warrant April 19; Blocher was arrested on that warrant in Douglas County on April 21 but was not returned to Lancaster County.
- Blocher was convicted and sentenced in Douglas County (third-offense shoplifting) and remained in custody there until released July 11, 2019, when Lancaster deputies immediately took custody.
- Lancaster set a new docket/trial schedule; Blocher moved for absolute discharge (Aug. 16) arguing speedy-trial violation; the district court denied the motion, finding the Douglas County incarceration time attributable to Blocher. Blocher appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Blocher) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether time Blocher was in Douglas County custody is excluded from speedy-trial computation | Time is attributable to Blocher under §29-1207(4)(d) because she failed to appear; Lancaster acted diligently (bench warrant issued and served) | She was "incarcerated" and thus excused from appearance; alternatively, Lancaster could have secured her return and failed to do so, so delay should be charged to State | Time excluded; Blocher was absent/unavailable and Lancaster acted with sufficient diligence; exclusion proper |
| Whether Lancaster had duty or power to force Douglas County to transfer custody sooner | Lancaster cannot compel another county to transfer custody; it sought a warrant and arrested Blocher when possible | County-level coordination required; delay results from Lancaster inaction | No duty found; no authority supports forcing transfer; county acted sufficiently |
| Whether any portion of delay could be excluded under other provisions | State argued periods while other county proceedings were pending are excludable under §29-1207(4)(a) | Blocher disputed attribution of all days | Court noted §29-1207(4)(a) would also cover at least part of the delay (other pending proceedings) |
| Whether next available trial date was reasonable after reappearance | State: trial date within six months of reappearance is presumed reasonable | Blocher: contested reasonableness due to prior delay | Trial date (Sept. 9) was within six months of reappearance and therefore reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844, 932 N.W.2d 64 (Neb. 2019) (standards for speedy-trial dismissal and statutory interpretation)
- State v. Petty, 269 Neb. 205, 691 N.W.2d 101 (Neb. 2005) (defendant who fails to appear is "absent or unavailable" and resulting delay is attributable to defendant)
- State v. McKenna, 228 Neb. 29, 421 N.W.2d 19 (Neb. 1988) (related precedent on absence/unavailability)
- State v. Tucker, 259 Neb. 225, 609 N.W.2d 306 (Neb. 2000) (county efforts to secure defendant can affect availability and delay analysis)
- State v. Steele, 261 Neb. 541, 624 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2001) (distinguishable facts concerning interjurisdictional custody and detainer practices)
- State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 223, 481 N.W.2d 200 (Neb. 1992) (procedural notice and related issues)