State v. Jennings, 957 N.W.2d 143

Aug 17, 2018: State filed a county-court complaint charging Jennings with misdemeanor stalking; arrest warrant issued Aug 20, 2018.
Jennings was not arrested until a misdemeanor-warrant sweep on May 29, 2019 (over 9 months later); arraigned May 30, 2019.
Jennings moved for absolute discharge under the 6-month statutory speedy trial rule, arguing the period before his arrest exceeded § 29-1207 limits.
At the discharge hearing the State relied on § 29-1207(4)(d) (absence/unavailability) and elicited Sgt. Kendall’s testimony about Jennings’ statements that he had spent time in Denver (~10 months), traveled to Las Vegas, and found a note from a process server; the State produced no evidence of attempts to serve the arrest warrant.
County court found Jennings "unavailable" while the warrant was pending and denied discharge; the district court affirmed. The Nebraska Supreme Court granted review, found the assignment of error reviewable, and reached the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the time between complaint filing and Jennings’ arrest (pending unserved warrant) was excludable under § 29‑1207(4)(d), tolling the 6‑month speedy‑trial period	State: The delay was due to Jennings’ absence/unavailability; Jennings told officers he had lived out of state and knew or suspected of a warrant, so the warrant period is excludable	Jennings: He lacked notice of the charge/warrant and the State offered no evidence of diligent efforts to serve the warrant; therefore the 6‑month period expired and he is entitled to absolute discharge	Court: Assignment reviewable; State failed to prove notice or diligent attempts to serve the warrant, so the warrant period was not excludable and Jennings is entitled to absolute discharge

State v. McGinn, 303 Neb. 224, 928 N.W.2d 391 (2019) (appellee seeking to vindicate a lower court ruling rejected by the intermediate appellate court must cross‑appeal to preserve review; clarifies scope of review from district court as intermediate appellate court)
State v. Chapman, 307 Neb. 443, 949 N.W.2d 490 (2020) (State bears burden to prove arrest‑warrant pendency is excludable under § 29‑1207(4)(d); mere issuance of a warrant without proof of diligent service efforts is insufficient)
State v. Richter, 240 Neb. 223, 481 N.W.2d 200 (1992) (defendant must be properly notified before failure to appear produces excludable time; pending warrant may toll time only if State proves diligent efforts to serve the warrant)
State v. Blocher, 307 Neb. 874, 951 N.W.2d 499 (2020) (when a defendant is given proper notice to appear and fails to do so, the absence is attributable to the defendant for speedy‑trial calculation)