State v. Coble
908 N.W.2d 646
Neb.2018Background
- In 2013 Kaitlyn Coble (age 18 at the time) received a citation for two misdemeanors; after completing diversion the charges were dismissed on the city attorney’s motion.
- In 2017 Coble filed a "Motion to Seal Records" in the original county court case seeking to make the case records nonpublic under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3523.
- The county court overruled the motion, concluding the post-dismissal motion procedure had no basis in the statute and that the earlier statute version applied only to a "notation of arrest," not citation records; the court relied on State v. Blair.
- Coble appealed to district court, which affirmed; Coble appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held it need not reach whether Coble would be entitled to sealing on the merits because the county court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a statutory-sealing claim by motion in the dismissed criminal case.
- The Supreme Court vacated the county- and district-court orders and dismissed the appeal, disapproving Blair to the extent it allowed the motion-in-case procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a post-dismissal motion filed within the original criminal case can be used to obtain relief under § 29-3523 | Coble: filing a motion in the dismissed case to seal records is an authorized and permissible procedure (as allowed by Blair) | State: § 29-3523 does not authorize such a motion; relief must be pursued by statute-prescribed procedure | Held: Not authorized — county court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the motion; proper remedy is a separate action under the statute (e.g., under § 29-3528) |
| Whether the county court's order overruling the motion was a final, appealable order | Coble: the order affected a substantial right and thus was final and appealable | State: challenged finality and jurisdiction | Held: The order did affect a substantial right and therefore was a final order, but finality alone does not cure lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; appellate courts therefore lack jurisdiction to review merits when lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Blair controls procedure | Coble: Blair sanctioned filing a motion in the case; thus county court was correct to entertain the motion | State: Blair was incorrect; statutory scheme provides a different enforcement procedure | Held: Blair was wrongly decided to the extent it allowed the motion-in-case procedure; the Supreme Court disapproves that aspect of Blair |
| Whether legislative acquiescence requires following Blair | Coble: Legislature did not amend statute after Blair, implying acquiescence | State: doctrine applies only where prior decision interprets statutory text | Held: Legislative acquiescence does not apply because Blair did not rest on statutory interpretation of text; thus no bar to overruling that procedural holding |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blair, 17 Neb. App. 611 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009) (Court of Appeals approved filing motion in original case to seek sealing/expungement)
- Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 297 Neb. 938 (Neb. 2017) (standards for appellate jurisdictional review)
- Boyd v. Cook, 298 Neb. 819 (Neb. 2018) (discussion of final order categories under § 25-1902)
- Heathman v. Kenney, 263 Neb. 966 (Neb. 2002) (postjudgment motion characterization)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (Neb. 2017) (limitations on applying legislative acquiescence where no statutory text was interpreted)