State v. Hood, 294 Neb. 747

Edward Hood was charged by information with six offenses arising from a December 7, 2013 fatal motor vehicle accident, including motor vehicle homicide and related DUI/refusal counts.
Hood moved to suppress blood and urine evidence; after an evidentiary hearing the district court granted the motion on February 27, 2015.
The State filed notice of intent to appeal the suppression order and later filed an application for review in the Nebraska Supreme Court; the Court of Appeals dismissed the State’s appeal for failure to timely file the bill of exceptions.
After the appeal was dismissed and the case remanded, Hood moved for absolute discharge under Nebraska’s six-month speedy trial statute, claiming the time during the State’s appeal should count against the six-month limit.
The district court denied discharge, concluding the time the State spent pursuing its interlocutory appeal was excludable from the speedy-trial computation; Hood appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether time attributable to the State’s interlocutory appeal of a suppression order is excludable from the six-month speedy-trial period	Hood: The appeal delay should not be excluded because the appeal was dismissed for procedural failure, so final disposition occurred earlier	State: The appeal was statutorily authorized under § 29-824; time while appeal was pending is an expected consequence of the suppression motion and should be excluded	The Supreme Court held the delay is excludable because the State was statutorily authorized to appeal; final disposition did not occur until the appeal was decided

State v. Hayes, 10 Neb. App. 833 (2002) (held speedy-trial clock tolled while State pursues authorized interlocutory appeal of suppression order)
State v. Recek, 263 Neb. 644 (2002) (distinguished Hayes where State lacked statutory authority to appeal; delay not excludable when appeal unauthorized)