State v. Harris, 307 Neb. 237

Background

Jack E. Harris was convicted of first-degree murder and a weapons charge in 2000 and sentenced; his direct appeal and multiple collateral attacks produced several Nebraska Supreme Court opinions (Harris I–V).
In Harris V the Nebraska Supreme Court remanded, directing the district court to clarify which postconviction motion it had decided and to apply the correct standard to claims that the State suppressed Allgood’s statements and to address claims about Hicks’ plea agreement.
After the Harris V mandate, the district court (1) granted Harris a new trial (Sept. 21, 2017) and dismissed his third amended postconviction motion, and later (2) granted Harris an absolute discharge on speedy-trial grounds (Feb. 4, 2019).
The State filed two routes of appellate review (a direct appeal and exception proceedings); this Court consolidated and analyzed jurisdiction and the merits in the direct appeal (S-19-133) and dismissed the exception proceedings as moot (S-19-130).
The Nebraska Supreme Court held the district court failed to comply with the Harris V mandate, concluded the new-trial order and the discharge order were void, vacated both orders (except the court’s clarification about which motion had been addressed), and remanded with directions to proceed in conformity with Harris V and to reinstate convictions/sentences.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Harris' Argument	Held
Whether the State may directly appeal an order granting a new trial based on newly discovered evidence filed after time for direct appeal	The new-trial motion is a collateral, civil special proceeding attacking a final judgment; no statute bars the State’s direct appeal	Absent statutory authorization the State generally cannot appeal adverse criminal rulings; new-trial order is a criminal proceeding	Allowed: the new-trial order was a collateral civil special proceeding affecting a substantial state right, so the State may directly appeal
Whether the new-trial order was a final, appealable order	The order affected the State’s substantial interest in finality and was made during a special proceeding	Relied on precedent (Taylor, Linn, Martinez) treating new-trial orders as nonfinal where no sentence entered	Final: order was a final, appealable order as an order affecting a substantial right in a special proceeding
Whether the district court complied with the Harris V mandate when it granted a new trial	The district court exceeded the remand scope by deciding the new-trial motion instead of following the mandate to resolve specific postconviction claims	The court could consider the new-trial motion separately (Smith) and address postconviction matters as it saw fit	Vacated: the district court did not follow the mandate; its new-trial order (except the clarification about which postconviction motion was addressed) was void and must be vacated and remanded for compliance with Harris V
Validity of the absolute discharge and State’s right to appeal it	The discharge arose during postconviction/collateral proceedings (civil special proceeding) and affected the State’s substantial right; appeal timely filed	If the new-trial order were valid, discharge was proper and not appealable by the State	Vacated: because the new-trial order was void and the discharge relied on that void order (and also exceeded the remand scope), discharge was void; convictions/sentences to be reinstated on remand

Key Cases Cited

State v. Harris, 296 Neb. 317, 893 N.W.2d 440 (Neb. 2017) (Harris V) (mandate and instructions on remand concerning suppression and plea-agreement claims)
State v. Payne, 298 Neb. 373, 904 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 2017) (lower court must follow appellate mandate; deviation voids orders beyond remand scope)
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493, 941 N.W.2d 145 (Neb. 2020) (remand scope limits trial court authority)
State v. Henk, 299 Neb. 586, 909 N.W.2d 634 (Neb. 2018) (cannot assert new claims on remand beyond specific appellate instructions)
State v. Paulsen, 304 Neb. 21, 932 N.W.2d 849 (Neb. 2019) (appellate jurisdiction requires final order)
State v. Fredrickson, 305 Neb. 165, 939 N.W.2d 385 (Neb. 2020) (factors for whether an order affects a substantial right)
Smith v. State, 167 Neb. 492, 93 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. 1958) (motion for new trial may be considered separately from criminal proceedings)
State v. Taylor, 179 Neb. 42, 136 N.W.2d 179 (Neb. 1965) (prior cases treating new-trial orders as nonfinal in non-collateral contexts)
State v. Thalken, 299 Neb. 857, 911 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2018) (general rule that State lacks appeal rights in criminal cases absent statute)