State v. Bridgeford, 299 Neb. 22

Appeals in consolidated cases S-16-1032 and S-16-1035 to the Nebraska Supreme Court concerning speedy trial rulings in State v. Bridgeford.
The court issued an opinion in 298 Neb. 156, 903 N.W.2d 22 (2017) and the appellee filed a consolidated motion for rehearing.
The Supreme Court modified portions of its original opinion rather than granting full rehearing, withdrawing and substituting language in several specific syllabus/paragraphs.
Central factual/procedural issue: Judith Bridgeford filed an August 18, 2014 motion for an indefinite continuance; the next trial date set was June 25, 2015.
Court addressed how to calculate the excludable period attributable to a defendant’s motion to continue and whether Judith’s motion resulted in permanent waiver of her statutory speedy trial right.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When does the excludable period for a defendant‑requested indefinite continuance run?	State: Excludable period runs from the day of the motion until the new trial date set.	Bridgeford: Likely argued alternative end points (e.g., earlier intervening actions) should limit exclusion.	Court: Runs from day of motion until either defendant’s notice requesting trial or date set by court’s own motion.
Whether Judith’s August 18, 2014 motion extended speedy trial beyond the 6‑month period	State: The continuance created excludable delay and extended the speedy trial deadline.	Judith: Argued the 6‑month period should be calculated differently so the right was not waived.	Court: The continuance produced a trial date (June 25, 2015) that exceeded the 6‑month period as calculated at time of motion.
Whether Judith permanently waived her statutory speedy trial right by the motion	State: Motion resulted in waiver.	Judith: Contended she did not permanently waive the right.	Court: Judith permanently waived her statutory speedy trial right by virtue of the August 18, 2014 motion.
Whether the original opinion should be modified on rehearing	Appellee: Sought clarification/correction of wording and legal standard.	Appellants: Opposed modifications that altered holdings.	Court: Overruled rehearing motion but modified and substituted specific syllabus/paragraph language; remainder unchanged.

State v. Bridgeford, 298 Neb. 156, 903 N.W.2d 22 (2017) (original opinion modified by supplemental opinion)
State v. Wells, 277 Neb. 476, 763 N.W.2d 380 (2009) (discusses exclusion rules for continuances)
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (2009) (concurrence addressing speedy trial continuances)
State v. Schmader, 13 Neb. App. 321, 691 N.W.2d 559 (2005) (prior appellate treatment of continuance/excludable delay)