State v. Denton, 949 N.W.2d 344

Background

Denton was convicted after a bench trial of violating Lincoln Municipal Code § 9.12.010(b) (battery). The municipal penalty ordinance permits up to 6 months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine; the court imposed only a $250 fine.
A separate Lincoln ordinance (§ 9.36.100) imposes a 10-year firearm-possession ban for persons convicted of the municipal battery offense, a collateral consequence Denton relied on to argue he was entitled to a jury trial.
Nebraska statute § 25-2705 bars jury trials for criminal cases arising under city ordinances; the county court denied Denton’s written demand for a jury trial on that basis.
Denton appealed; he argued that the collateral firearm ban made the offense "serious" and thereby triggered a constitutional jury right, which would require treating § 25-2705 as inapplicable or unconstitutional as applied.
Denton did not comply with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(E) — he did not file the separate notice (or petition to bypass) notifying the Nebraska Supreme Court and the Attorney General that he was challenging the constitutionality of a statute. The Supreme Court therefore declined to reach the constitutional merits and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Denton)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Denton was entitled to a jury trial because a collateral firearm-ban penalty made the municipal offense "serious"	Collateral firearm ban (10-year prohibition) converts the municipal offense into a serious offense, triggering the right to jury trial	§ 25-2705 unequivocally removes jury-trial entitlement for criminal prosecutions under city ordinances; collateral consequences do not override that statutory bar	Court did not reach the merits; appeal foreclosed because Denton failed to comply with § 2-109(E); judgment affirmed
Whether a party must strictly comply with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(E) when challenging a statute's constitutionality	(Implicit) Denton advanced an as-applied constitutional challenge but did not file the separate notice required by § 2-109(E)	Strict compliance with § 2-109(E) is required to notify the court and Attorney General and to secure full-court review of constitutional questions	Held: Strict compliance is required; failure to provide the required notice and to serve the Attorney General bars consideration of the constitutional challenge
Whether an alleged error not both assigned and argued in the brief is preserved for appellate review	Denton filed a prior "Notice of Errors" alleging an additional disclosure-motion error but did not brief it	Errors must be both assigned and argued in the appellate brief to be considered	Held: The disclosure-motion claim was not briefed and is therefore waived; the court did not address it

Key Cases Cited

State v. Dixon, 306 Neb. 853, 947 N.W.2d 563 (Neb. 2020) (assignment-and-argument preservation rule)
State v. Jenkins, 303 Neb. 676, 931 N.W.2d 851 (Neb. 2019) (constitutionality of a statute is a question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Epp, 299 Neb. 703, 910 N.W.2d 91 (Neb. 2018) (requiring strict compliance with Neb. Ct. R. App. P. § 2-109(E))
State v. Boche, 294 Neb. 912, 885 N.W.2d 523 (Neb. 2016) (same: procedural notice requirement for constitutional challenges)
State v. Douglas, 217 Neb. 199, 349 N.W.2d 870 (Neb. 1984) (discussing common-law duties of the Attorney General to defend statutes)
State v. Cozzens, 241 Neb. 565, 490 N.W.2d 184 (Neb. 1992) (§ 25-2705 leaves no discretion to grant jury trial for prosecutions under city ordinances)
Smith v. Wedekind, 302 Neb. 387, 923 N.W.2d 392 (Neb. 2019) (§ 2-109(E) applies regardless of how the constitutional challenge is characterized)