State v. Coble
299 Neb. 434
| Neb. | 2018Background
- In 2013 Kaitlyn N. Coble (then 18) received citations for two misdemeanors; charges were later dismissed after diversion on the city attorney’s motion.
- In 2017 Coble filed a "Motion to Seal Records" in the original county criminal case, seeking to make all records nonpublic under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3523.
- The Lancaster County Court overruled the motion, relying on State v. Blair (Neb. Ct. App.), and concluded the pre‑2016 statute did not cover citation records and that the 2016 amendment (L.B. 505) should not be applied retroactively.
- Coble appealed to the district court, which affirmed the county court’s ruling; she then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court held the county court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction to decide Coble’s motion because § 29-3523 and related provisions provide an enforcement mechanism by filing a separate action (e.g., mandamus) in district court, not by postjudgment motion in the dismissed criminal case.
- Because the county court lacked jurisdiction, the district court and the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to review the merits; both lower orders were vacated and the appeal dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a motion filed in the dismissed criminal case may be used to compel sealing under § 29-3523 | Coble: filing a motion in the original case is procedurally proper (following State v. Blair) to obtain sealing | State: statute is self‑executing or requires a separate action; motion procedure is unauthorized | Held: motion procedure is not authorized by statute; county court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction |
| Whether the county court’s order denying the motion was a final, appealable order | Coble: order affected substantial right and was appealable | State: challenges finality and procedural basis | Held: the order affected a substantial right and was a final order, but nevertheless void for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction |
| Whether State v. Blair authorizes Coble’s procedure and binds the Supreme Court | Coble: Blair allows motions in the original case; legislative acquiescence supports that practice | State: Blair misread statute; no statutory basis for motions; legislative acquiescence inapplicable | Held: Blair was wrongly decided to the extent it permitted this procedure; the Supreme Court disapproved it |
| Proper remedy/process to enforce § 29-3523 privacy rights | Coble: use motion in criminal case | State: file separate action under § 29-3528 (mandamus or other action) | Held: enforcement requires a separate action in district court under § 29-3528; motion in dismissed case was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blair, 17 Neb. App. 611 (Neb. Ct. App.) (Court of Appeals endorsed filing a motion in the original case to address expungement/record sealing)
- Kozal v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 297 Neb. 938 (2017) (jurisdictional principles regarding appellate review)
- Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458 (2017) (limits of legislative acquiescence doctrine when no statute is interpreted)
- Boyd v. Cook, 298 Neb. 819 (2018) (discusses final orders and postjudgment motions)
- State v. McNerny, 239 Neb. 887 (1992) (motion function and limits; motions are incidental to the case)