State v. Williams, 24 Neb. Ct. App. 920

Barbara J. Williams was charged with one count of felony child abuse based largely on timing evidence from the child’s mother’s cell phone records.
Parties stipulated to admission of cell-phone call-detail records (CDRs) showing times and a NEID column denoting network elements; no records-custodian witness was called pretrial.
During trial, prosecutors learned some CDR entries used mountain time rather than central time and obtained a tower-location key (relating NEID to tower locations/timestamps); that key was not disclosed to defense before or during relevant testimony.
The detective testified about NEID/tower locations but did not disclose receipt of the new key or that timestamps might be inaccurate; defense’s expert relied on the assumption all times were central time.
The State announced it would present rebuttal evidence using the newly obtained key; Williams moved for and was granted a mistrial based on the State’s late disclosure.
Williams then filed a plea in bar (double jeopardy) and a motion for sanctions/other relief; the district court found no prosecutorial intent to provoke a mistrial and denied relief. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after a defendant‑moved mistrial where the prosecution nondisclosed evidence allegedly intended to provoke mistrial	Williams: The State intentionally withheld the tower/key to provoke a mistrial so retrial is barred	State: Late disclosure was misconduct or error but not intended to provoke a mistrial; retrial permitted	Held: No clear evidence of intent to provoke mistrial; plea in bar denied and retrial not barred
Whether district court abused discretion by denying sanctions, fees, or dismissal for late disclosure	Williams: Late disclosure wasted resources and sanctions (dismissal, fees) were warranted	State: Conduct was mistaken belief about rebuttal use, not nefarious; sanctions not required	Held: No abuse of discretion; district court reasonably declined sanctions

State v. Muhannad, 286 Neb. 567 (Neb. 2013) (articulates factors for assessing whether prosecutor intended to provoke a mistrial)
State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 (Neb. 2015) (trial-court factual finding on prosecutorial intent reviewed for clear error)
Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1982) (double jeopardy bars retrial only when prosecutor intended to provoke mistrial)
State v. Arizola, 295 Neb. 477 (Neb. 2017) (plea-in-bar is question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Russell, 292 Neb. 501 (Neb. 2016) (trial court has broad discretion on discovery sanctions)
State v. Boche, 294 Neb. 912 (Neb. 2016) (appellant must supply record supporting asserted trial-court errors)