State v. Moody
311 Neb. 143
Neb.2022Background:
- Information filed May 15, 2020 charging Moody with two felonies; statutory 6‑month speedy‑trial period would end (after excluding one day for a discovery motion) on November 16, 2020.
- Trial was originally set for November 9, 2020; the court sua sponte continued the trial three times (to Jan. 20, 2021; Mar. 17, 2021; and Apr. 14, 2021) citing presiding‑judge orders limiting jury trials because of COVID‑19.
- The continuance orders attached the presiding judge’s pandemic orders and the court received an affidavit from the assigned judge’s bailiff about limited jury availability and backlog.
- Moody moved for absolute discharge on March 31, 2021, arguing statutory and constitutional speedy‑trial violations and that the court did not show good cause or explain why his case could not be tried while some trials were proceeding.
- The district court overruled the motion, finding the COVID‑19 pandemic and related restrictions constituted good cause and that the exclusions pushed the last trial date past March 31, 2021; Moody appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Moody's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuances ordered sua sponte due to COVID‑19 were excludable as "good cause" under § 29‑1207(4)(f) | Continuances were not supported by adequate evidence; some trials occurred so his case could have been tried | Presiding judge’s pandemic orders, bailiff affidavit, and docket/backlog showed limited jury capacity and justified exclusions | Affirmed: COVID‑19 restrictions and orders provided sufficient good cause; exclusion not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the court made the specific findings required when excluding time (causes and period attributable) | Order lacked specificity as to why Moody’s particular case could not be called and failed to calculate excluded days/last trial date | Court tied continuances to presiding judge’s orders, identified the continuance dates, and showed backlog/prioritization of older cases | Affirmed: findings were sufficiently specific to show causes and that excluded period extended last trial date beyond Moody’s motion filing |
| Whether the constitutional speedy‑trial claim is reviewable on interlocutory appeal | Moody sought relief on constitutional speedy‑trial grounds | State argued interlocutory review is barred for constitutional claim in this procedural posture | Dismissed: appellate jurisdiction lacking to review constitutional speedy‑trial claim in this interlocutory appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 310 Neb. 224 (2021) (district court’s COVID‑19 continuance findings upheld where record and judicially noticed facts supported good cause)
- State v. Chase, 310 Neb. 160 (2021) (evidence of good cause may be presented at motion for discharge and review considers whole record)
- State v. Alvarez, 189 Neb. 281 (1972) (court must make specific findings as to causes and period when excluding time under speedy‑trial statute)
- State v. Abernathy, 310 Neb. 880 (2022) (pretrial order denying discharge on constitutional speedy‑trial grounds is not reviewable in interlocutory appeal under § 25‑1902)
- U.S. v. Olsen, 21 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2022) (a global pandemic can constitute unique circumstances justifying temporary suspension/limitation of jury trials)