State v. Chapman, 949 N.W.2d 490

March 29, 2017: Hall County filed a complaint charging Ellis Chapman with misdemeanor theft; arraignment set for April 12, 2017.
Chapman did not appear at the April 12 arraignment; the county court found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant that remained pending.
Chapman was not arrested until April 24, 2019; he pleaded not guilty on April 25, 2019, and on July 1, 2019 moved for absolute discharge under Nebraska's speedy trial statutes.
At the speedy-trial hearing the State offered the warrant and a March 28, 2017 letter addressed to Chapman but presented no evidence showing service of the letter or diligent efforts to serve the warrant.
The county court denied the motion as frivolous, finding the warrant period excluded from the speedy-trial computation; the district court affirmed. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed.
Supreme Court holding: the State failed to prove any excluded period by a preponderance of the evidence; Chapman was not brought to trial within six months and was entitled to absolute discharge; case remanded with directions to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether time while an arrest warrant was pending is excluded from the 6-month speedy-trial period under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(d)	State: pendency of warrant renders defendant "absent or unavailable," excluding the entire warrant period; remand needed for further factfinding on notice	Chapman: warrant pendency alone does not exclude time absent proof of statutory service/notice or diligent efforts to serve the warrant	Court: warrant pendency excludes time only if State proves excluded period (e.g., diligent efforts to serve or proof of notice); State offered no such evidence, so no time excluded
Whether Chapman was denied a fair hearing by the county court	State: county court proceedings were proper	Chapman: county court showed bias and called motion frivolous	Court: not necessary to decide because Chapman entitled to discharge on speedy-trial grounds; county court and district court erred in finding excluded time

State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844 (Neb. 2019) (standard of review: speedy-trial dismissal is factual and reviewed for clear error)
State v. Gill, 297 Neb. 852 (Neb. 2017) (denial of nonfrivolous motion for absolute discharge is final and appealable)
State v. Stevens, 189 Neb. 487 (Neb. 1972) (speedy-trial statutes apply to county-court complaints)
State v. Schanaman, 286 Neb. 125 (Neb. 2013) (continued application of speedy-trial rules to county complaints)
State v. Lebeau, 280 Neb. 238 (Neb. 2010) (how to compute the six-month speedy-trial period)
State v. Liming, 306 Neb. 475 (Neb. 2020) (defendant entitled to discharge if not tried within computed period)
State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133 (Neb. 2009) (State bears burden to prove applicability of excluded time)
State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 223 (Neb. 1991) (warrant pendency excludes time only if State shows diligent efforts to secure defendant or proof of notice)
State v. Lintz, 298 Neb. 103 (Neb. 2017) (appellate review of speedy-trial calculations requires adequate factual findings)