State v. Lintz
298 Neb. 103
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Tyler Lintz was charged by complaint with a misdemeanor domestic assault on Feb 8, 2016, after arrest on Feb 5, 2016; he requested a jury trial.
- County court set jury trial with voir dire to begin July 26, 2016; Lintz failed to appear for jury selection and a bench warrant issued; State added misdemeanor failure-to-appear charge.
- Lintz surrendered July 28, 2016, waived jury trial that day, and county court set a bench trial for Sept 22, 2016.
- Lintz moved for absolute discharge on Aug 11, 2016, alleging statutory speedy-trial (6-month) violation; county court denied the motion, finding the delay from his failure to appear was excludable under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207(4)(d).
- District court affirmed the county court; Lintz appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court challenging denial of absolute discharge under the statutory speedy-trial rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lintz's statutory 6-month speedy trial right was violated | Lintz argued the 6-month clock expired before trial, entitling him to absolute discharge | State argued excludable delay began when Lintz failed to appear and time between absence and next reasonably available trial date is excluded under § 29-1207(4)(d) | Court reversed and remanded for entry of specific findings/calculation required by State v. Williams; did not resolve ultimate timeliness without those findings |
| Whether the county court's order denying discharge was appealable | Implicit: order denying absolute discharge affects substantial right and is final | State conceded or relied on precedent that such orders are appealable | Court confirmed the order was final and appealable |
| What findings are required when ruling on motion for absolute discharge | Lintz: trial court must calculate total excludable days to show 6-month computation | State: court may apply excludable periods but county court's general rationale sufficed | Court held trial courts must make detailed findings (dates, nature, days per excludable period, remaining days), per State v. Williams |
| Appellate reviewability when trial court omits required computation | Lintz: omission prevents meaningful appellate review | State: factual determination may be affirmed absent clear error | Court held omission prevents review and ordered remand for required computation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 277 Neb. 133, 761 N.W.2d 514 (2009) (trial courts must make specific computations and findings for all statutorily excludable periods when ruling on motions for absolute discharge)
- State v. Hettle, 288 Neb. 288, 848 N.W.2d 582 (2014) (trial court determinations on speedy-trial dismissal are factual and reviewed for clear error)
- State v. McColery, 297 Neb. 53, 898 N.W.2d 349 (2017) (appellate jurisdiction requires a final order)
- State v. Gibbs, 253 Neb. 241, 570 N.W.2d 326 (1997) (ruling on motion for absolute discharge affects a substantial right and is appealable)
- Rutherford v. Rutherford, 277 Neb. 301, 761 N.W.2d 922 (2009) (remand required when trial court omits required worksheet/finding that prevents meaningful review)