State v. Coomes
309 Neb. 749
| Neb. | 2021Background
- The State charged Keith P. Coomes with first-degree and third-degree assault; jury trial on Sept. 12, 2019 produced a not-guilty verdict on the misdemeanor and a mistrial on the felony, restarting the 6‑month speedy‑trial clock.
- Defense sought multiple continuances for Coomes’ post‑accident recovery (Oct 22, 2019–Jan 17, 2020), which the parties and court treated as attributable to Coomes.
- On Jan. 17, 2020 the court sua sponte removed retained counsel; replacement counsel was appointed Feb. 11, 2020, and the court scheduled status hearings to allow new counsel to get up to speed.
- The court set a retrial date (Aug. 17–18, 2020) with on‑the‑record assent from defense counsel and Coomes at the June 9, 2020 pretrial; Coomes filed a motion for absolute discharge on Aug. 10, 2020.
- The district court denied discharge, excluding time between Oct. 22, 2019 and Apr. 7, 2020 (finding good cause for Jan 17–Apr 7), and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, but adjusted the excludable periods in its analysis.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Coomes' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by having the defense present evidence first and thereby shifting the burden of proof | Order of proof is discretionary; court repeatedly acknowledged State bears burden | Court compelled defense to present first and thereby shifted burden to defendant | No plain error; order of proof discretionary and no prejudice shown; burden remained with State |
| Whether the State failed its burden by presenting no evidence at the hearing | State may rely on evidence/admissions offered by defendant; defense exhibits can satisfy State's burden | State’s failure to present its own evidence means it did not meet burden to show excludable time | Held for State — court may consider defense‑offered evidence and admissions; not plain error |
| Whether the period after counsel removal (Jan 17–Apr 7, 2020) was excludable for "good cause" under § 29‑1207(4)(f) | Appointment of new counsel justified excluding time while counsel got up to speed | No good cause; no period of delay for part of that span; record insufficient | Partially: Jan 17–Feb 11 not excludable (appointment occurred Feb 11); Feb 11–Apr 7 excludable for good cause (new counsel needed time) |
| Whether April 7–May 12 (and related continuances) were excludable as continuances with defense consent and final speedy‑trial calculus | April 7–May 12 (and June 9–Aug 17) were consented to by defense and excludable under § 29‑1207(4)(b); total excluded time leaves deadline after defendant's motion | These periods should not be excluded; motion for discharge timely | April 7–May 12 excludable (defense consent); total excluded time = 178 days, moving deadline to Sept 7, 2020; motion filed Aug 10 was premature to gain discharge; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443 (Neb. 2020) (method for computing the 6‑month speedy‑trial period)
- State v. Dockery, 273 Neb. 330 (Neb. 2007) (a mistrial restarts the speedy‑trial clock)
- State v. Hernandez, 308 Neb. 299 (Neb. 2021) (defendant’s admissions and defense‑offered materials may be treated as evidence)
- State v. Kolbjornsen, 295 Neb. 231 (Neb. 2016) (definition of "good cause" as a substantial reason requiring case‑by‑case factual analysis)
- State v. Lovvorn, 303 Neb. 844 (Neb. 2019) (periods of delay can be excludable even if trial date remains unchanged)
- State v. Kinstler, 207 Neb. 386 (Neb. 1980) (trial court must make specific findings when excluding time for "good cause")