State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835

Aug 17, 2018: State filed county-court complaint charging Jennings with misdemeanor stalking; arrest warrant issued Aug 20, 2018.
Jennings was not arrested until May 29, 2019 (warrant sweep); arraigned May 30, 2019; case set on jury docket and later continued on defense motions.
Aug 30, 2019: Jennings moved for absolute discharge under constitutional and statutory speedy-trial grounds, arguing the 6-month period expired before his arrest.
At the discharge hearing the State relied solely on § 29-1207(4)(d) (absence/unavailability) and presented testimony of an officer recounting statements by Jennings that he had spent time in Denver and traveled, and that he had found a note he thought was from a process server; the State presented no evidence of attempts to serve the warrant or of Jennings receiving notice to appear.
County court denied discharge (found Jennings unavailable); district court affirmed. Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed, found the State failed to prove excluded time under § 29-1207(4)(d), reversed, and directed grant of absolute discharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an assignment of error that refers to the county court ruling (not the district court) is unreviewable under McGinn	State: McGinn precludes review unless error is framed against the district court or State cross-appeals	Jennings: Assignment, though imprecise, sufficiently notifies issues and is reviewable	Court: Assignment was reviewable; McGinn was misapplied by State — appellate review considers whether district court erred in affirming county court and necessarily examines county-court decision
Whether the time between complaint filing and Jennings’ arrest (warrant pending) is excludable under § 29-1207(4)(d)	State: Time is excludable because Jennings was absent/unavailable; officer testimony and Jennings’ statements show he left the jurisdiction and avoided the warrant	Jennings: State failed to show he had notice or that the State made diligent efforts to serve the warrant; mere issuance of a warrant without service does not toll speedy-trial clock	Court: State failed to prove excluded time. Absent evidence of notice or diligent attempts to serve the warrant, the pending warrant did not toll the 6-month period; Jennings entitled to absolute discharge

State v. McGinn, 303 Neb. 224, 928 N.W.2d 391 (2019) (discusses preservation, appellee seeking affirmance on grounds rejected below, and when cross-appeal is required)
State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443, 949 N.W.2d 490 (2020) (held State must prove diligent efforts to serve a warrant before time while a warrant is pending is excludable under § 29-1207(4)(d))
State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 223, 481 N.W.2d 200 (1992) (established that issuance of a warrant alone ordinarily does not toll speedy-trial time absent notice to defendant or proof of diligent service efforts)
State v. Blocher, 307 Neb. 874, 951 N.W.2d 499 (2020) (reiterates general rule about notice/failure to appear and allocation of time until next reasonably available trial date)