State v. Moody
970 N.W.2d 770
Neb.2022Background
- Information filed May 15, 2020, charging David J. Moody with two Class IIIA felonies (domestic violence assault — 2nd offense, and strangulation).
- Trial originally set for November 9, 2020; court ordered three sua sponte continuances (to Jan. 20, 2021; Mar. 17, 2021; Apr. 14, 2021).
- Continuances implemented pursuant to presiding-judge orders limiting jury trials because of COVID-19 (social‑distancing, limited courtroom space, jury‑pool concerns); bailiff affidavit corroborated limited trial slots and backlog.
- Moody filed a motion for absolute discharge (Mar. 31, 2021), claiming statutory (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1207/1208) and constitutional speedy‑trial violations; district court overruled the motion, finding the continuances excludable for "good cause."
- On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court held it lacked interlocutory jurisdiction to review the constitutional claim and affirmed the district court’s statutory‑speedy‑trial ruling as not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Moody's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continuances ordered by the court were excludable for "good cause" under § 29‑1207(4)(f) | The pandemic orders did not justify excluding the delays; other trials occurred, so his case could have been tried | Presiding judge's COVID‑19 orders, bailiff affidavit, and the resulting limited trial slots/backlog provided substantial legal excuse to exclude the delay | Court held the record supported good cause; continuances were excludable and the statutory speedy‑trial deadline had not passed when Moody moved to discharge |
| Whether the trial court made sufficiently specific findings identifying the cause(s) and period(s) of exclusion (Alvarez requirement) | Order lacked specificity as to why Moody’s particular case could not be called and did not compute excluded days/last trial date | Orders attached the presiding judge’s directives and bailiff affidavit; court identified the pandemic and related restrictions as the causes and tied exclusions to the three continuances | Court found the findings sufficiently specific for appellate review (causes and period tied to continuance dates); more granular day‑count not necessary here |
| Whether an interlocutory appeal may review a pretrial denial of discharge on constitutional speedy‑trial grounds | Moody sought appellate review of constitutional speedy‑trial violation | State argued interlocutory review of constitutional speedy‑trial discharge denial is not authorized under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25‑1902(1)(b) | Court dismissed that part of the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction (following State v. Abernathy) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 310 Neb. 224 (Neb. 2021) (COVID‑19 continuances may constitute "good cause" when supported by record)
- State v. Chase, 310 Neb. 160 (Neb. 2021) (evidence supporting "good cause" may be presented at discharge hearing; review considers the whole record)
- State v. Alvarez, 189 Neb. 281 (Neb. 1972) (court must make specific findings identifying causes and period(s) of excluded delay)
- State v. Abernathy, 310 Neb. 880 (Neb. 2022) (pretrial denial of constitutional speedy‑trial discharge is not appealable in a special proceeding under § 25‑1902(1)(b))
- U.S. v. Olsen, 21 F.4th 1036 (9th Cir. 2022) (a global pandemic can qualify as unique circumstances justifying temporary suspension of jury trials under federal Speedy Trial Act)