State v. Jennings, 308 Neb. 835

On Aug 17, 2018 the State filed a county‑court complaint charging Jennings with misdemeanor stalking; a warrant issued Aug 20, 2018.
Jennings was arrested on the warrant more than 9 months later during a May 29, 2019 Omaha warrant sweep; he pleaded not guilty and was released on bond.
Jennings moved for absolute discharge (Aug 30, 2019), arguing the statutory 6‑month speedy‑trial period had expired before he was arrested.
At the discharge hearing the State relied solely on § 29‑1207(4)(d) (absence/unavailability) and presented Sgt. Kendall’s testimony that Jennings told officers he had spent time in Denver (~10 months), had traveled to Las Vegas, and had found a note he thought might be from a process server; the State presented no evidence of prior attempts to serve the warrant or that Jennings had notice.
The county court denied discharge (finding Jennings unavailable while the warrant was pending) and the district court affirmed; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and reversed, directing the county court to grant absolute discharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jennings)	Held
Whether an assignment of error that refers to the county court rather than the district court is unreviewable under State v. McGinn	McGinn precludes review when an assignment targets the county court decision instead of the district court affirmance	Assignment is sufficient; appellate review must consider whether the district court erred in affirming the county court, so referencing the county court does not bar review	Assignment was reviewable; McGinn construed as requiring cross‑appeal only when an appellee seeks affirmative relief against the district court’s ruling; imprecision does not preclude review
Whether the time between filing the complaint and Jennings’ arrest was excludable under § 29‑1207(4)(d) because Jennings was absent or unavailable while the arrest warrant was outstanding	The pendency of the warrant (and Jennings’ statements about being out of state) shows he was unavailable and that the time is excludable	No evidence Jennings had notice of the charge/appearance; State produced no evidence of diligent attempts to serve the warrant, so time is not excludable	The State failed to carry its burden to prove excludable time; mere issuance of a warrant without proof of notice or diligent service efforts does not toll the speedy‑trial clock; Jennings entitled to absolute discharge

State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443 (holds pendency of a warrant can toll speedy‑trial time only if State proves diligent efforts to serve the warrant; reversed where State presented no such evidence)
State v. McGinn, 303 Neb. 224 (procedural rule that an appellee seeking to uphold a lower court on grounds rejected by the intermediate appellate court must cross‑appeal to preserve that issue)
State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 223 (a warrant’s mere issuance does not create excludable time; absent proof of notice, the State must show diligent attempts to secure defendant’s presence)
State v. Blocher, 307 Neb. 874 (recognizes rule that failure to appear is attributable to defendant only when the defendant had proper notice of the proceeding)