State v. Williams
987 N.W.2d 613
Neb.2023Background:
- Williams was charged by the City of Lincoln with assault and battery (city ordinance) via a complaint filed October 12, 2020 that attached a handwritten citation/UC&C.
- Initial court date November 4, 2020 was continued (telephone message in the court file indicating defendant requested a continuance); Williams missed a November 12 appearance and bench warrants followed; he voluntarily appeared January 27, 2021 and pled not guilty.
- Trial was set for April 12, 2021 (the six‑month deadline from the complaint). On April 12 Williams refused the court’s repeated orders to stop recording the proceedings with his phone; the court continued the trial on its own motion.
- The case was subsequently continued multiple times for reasons including Williams’ failures to appear; Williams moved for an absolute discharge under Nebraska’s speedy‑trial statutes on November 11, 2021.
- The county court excluded two periods from the speedy‑trial computation (Nov. 4, 2020–Apr. 12, 2021 and Apr. 12–June 8, 2021), denied discharge; the district court affirmed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, finding the Apr. 12–June 8 exclusion for good cause was not clearly erroneous.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Williams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nov. 4, 2020–Apr. 12, 2021 is excludable under § 29‑1207(4) | Time is excludable because defendant requested continuance on Nov. 4 and his later failures to appear shifted trial scheduling | The UC&C/summons was void/ineffective and defendant was not properly served, so the period is chargeable to the State | County court found it excludable under § 29‑1207(4)(b); Supreme Court did not decide this issue because another exclusion resolved the appeal |
| Whether Apr. 12–June 8, 2021 is excludable for good cause under § 29‑1207(4)(f) | Exclusion justified because Williams’ refusal to stop recording made trial impossible and delayed proceedings | Williams was ready to go to trial; court could have seized the phone or held him in contempt instead of continuing | Court held the exclusion was for good cause (substantial legal reason); finding not clearly erroneous, so time tolled |
| Admissibility of the telephonic message exhibit | The telephone message sheet properly authenticated and admitted to show defendant requested continuance | Objection: hearsay, lack of foundation, unauthenticated | Supreme Court declined to address this assignment because resolution did not require ruling on it |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Coomes, 309 Neb. 749, 962 N.W.2d 510 (2021) (defines “good cause” for § 29‑1207(4)(f) as a substantial factual/legal excuse and requires specific findings supported by the record)
- State v. Space, 312 Neb. 456, 980 N.W.2d 1 (2022) (absolute discharge remedy under speedy‑trial statutes applies to city ordinance prosecutions)
- State v. Nelson, 984 N.W.2d 620 (Neb. 2023) (explains calculation method for the six‑month speedy‑trial deadline)
- State v. Lebeau, 280 Neb. 238, 784 N.W.2d 921 (2010) (speedy‑trial statutes apply to prosecutions on complaint)
- State v. Moody, 311 Neb. 143, 970 N.W.2d 770 (2022) (continuance by the court on its own motion does not toll speedy‑trial time absent a showing of good cause)