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

Barbara J. Williams was tried on one count of child abuse arising from a skin injury to a disabled, nonverbal child; central evidence included phone-call logs showing timing of the mother’s calls the night of the injury.
Parties stipulated to admission of cell-phone records (call detail reports) without a provider custodian; the logs included a NEID field and a key explaining NEID as the network element handling the call.
Midtrial, the prosecutor learned some call timestamps in the mother’s log were recorded in mountain time (not central time) and obtained a different provider key linking NEID values to tower locations; that information was not disclosed to the defense before or during earlier testimony.
The State intended to use the newly obtained key and location/time information on rebuttal; the defense’s expert had relied on the assumption that all timestamps were central time and moved for a mistrial when the timing issue surfaced; the court granted the mistrial.
Williams filed a plea in bar (double jeopardy) and other motions seeking dismissal, sanctions, and fees, arguing the State intentionally withheld the information to provoke a mistrial; the district court denied relief after finding no prosecutorial intent to provoke a mistrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after mistrial granted on defendant's motion	Williams: State intentionally withheld material cell‑record information to goad a mistrial, so retrial is barred	State: Mistrial was proper but there was no intent to provoke mistrial; retrial permitted	Denied plea in bar; retrial not barred (trial court finding of no intent not clearly erroneous)
Whether prosecutors acted with intent to provoke a mistrial through late disclosure	Williams: Prosecutor’s questioning and late disclosure show a scheme to create grounds for mistrial	State: Late disclosure resulted from mistaken belief evidence could be used for rebuttal, not a scheme	Court found no intent to provoke mistrial; factor analysis supported State’s explanation
Whether sanctions or other relief (dismissal, fees, costs) were warranted for discovery misconduct	Williams: State’s failure to timely disclose squandered resources and justified sanctions/dismissal	State: Conduct was misconduct but not nefarious; sanctions discretionary and unnecessary	Denied additional relief; no abuse of discretion in declining sanctions
Whether trial court abused discretion in refusing remedies	Williams: Remedies were necessary to redress prejudice	State: Remedies not required given absence of intent and available curative measures	No abuse of discretion; district court’s approach affirmed

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (conduct intended to provoke mistrial bars retrial)
State v. Muhannad, 286 Neb. 567 (Nebraska Supreme Court factors for intent to provoke mistrial)
State v. Muhannad, 290 Neb. 59 (standard that trial court’s finding on prosecutorial intent is factual/reviewable for clear error)
State v. Arizola, 295 Neb. 477 (plea in bar legal standard)
State v. Russell, 292 Neb. 501 (trial court discretion on discovery sanctions)
State v. Boche, 294 Neb. 912 (appellant’s duty to provide record supporting claimed errors)