reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
NE Code § 29-2018 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2018 - Mistake in charging offense; prior to verdict; procedure.

29-2018.  Mistake in charging offense; prior to verdict; procedure.When it shall appear at any time before the verdict that a mistake has been made in charging the proper offense, the accused shall not be discharged if there appears to be good cause to detain him in custody; but the court must recognize him to answer to the offense on the first day of the next term of such court, and shall, if necessary, likewise recognize the witnesses to appear and testify.Source   G.S.1873, c. 58, § 480, p. 829;   R.S.1913, § 9121;   C.S.1922, § 10146;   C.S.1929, § 29-2018;   R.S.1943, § 29-2018. Annotations  In recognizing defendant to appear at next term, judge acts as examining magistrate, and, if he discharges defendant without so recognizing him such discharge will not be bar to arrest and examination before another magistrate. Sieck v. State, 96 Neb. 782, 148 N.W. 928 (1914). Though information is defective, court may hold accused if probable cause exists. State v. Kendall, 38 Neb. 817, 57 N.W. 525 (1894).
NE Code § 29-2019 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2019 - Mistake in charging offense; jury; discharge prior to verdict.

29-2019.  Mistake in charging offense; jury; discharge prior to verdict.When a jury has been impaneled in a case contemplated by section 29-2018, such jury may be discharged without prejudice to the prosecution.Source   G.S.1873, c. 58, § 481, p. 829;   R.S.1913, § 9122;   C.S.1922, § 10147;   C.S.1929, § 29-2019;   R.S.1943, § 29-2019.
NE Code § 29-2020 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2020 - Bill of exceptions by defendant; request; procedure; exception in capital cases.

29-2020.  Bill of exceptions by defendant; request; procedure; exception in capital cases.Except as provided in section 29-2525 for cases when the punishment is capital, in all criminal cases when a defendant feels aggrieved by any opinion or decision of the court, he or she may order a bill of exceptions. The ordering, preparing, signing, filing, correcting, and amending of the bill of exceptions shall be governed by the rules established in such matters in civil cases.Source   G.S.1873, c. 58, § 482, p. 829;   R.S.1913, § 9123;   C.S.1922, § 10148;   C.S.1929, § 29-2020;   R.S.1943, § 29-2020;   Laws 1959, c. 120, § 1, p. 452;   Laws 1961, c. 135, § 2, p. 390;   Laws 1990, LB 829, § 1;  Laws 2015, LB268, § 17;   Referendum 2016, No. 426.   Note: The changes made to section 29-2020 by Laws 2015, LB 268, section 17, have been omitted because of the vote on the referendum at the November 2016 general election. Cross References  Error proceedings by county attorney, decision on appeal, see section 29-2316.Annotations  Preparation of bill of exceptions in criminal case is governed by rules governing a civil case. Benedict v. State, 166 Neb. 295, 89 N.W.2d 82 (1958). Sufficient exceptions were taken by convicted defendant to warrant consideration of alleged errors committed at trial. Scott v. State, 121 Neb. 232, 236 N.W. 608 (1931). Affidavits for continuance will not be considered by appellate court unless embodied in bill of exceptions. Hans v. State, 50 Neb. 150, 69 N.W. 838 (1897). Facts of which there is no evidence or recitation in bill of exceptions, will be disregarded in Supreme Court. McCall v. State, 47 Neb. 660, 66 N.W. 635 (1896). In capital case, want of exception will not necessarily deprive prisoner of right to new trial for prejudicial errors of court. Schlencker v. State, 9 Neb. 300, 2 N.W. 710 (1879). Arguments of counsel on questions raised during trial and remarks of court in deciding them serve no useful place in bill of exceptions and should be omitted. Clough v. State, 7 Neb. 320 (1878). Prisoner tried for felony is entitled to new trial on ground of prejudicial erroneous instruction, even though no objection was taken thereto. Thompson v. People, 4 Neb. 524 (1876).
NE Code § 29-2023 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2023 - Jury; discharged before verdict; effect; record.

29-2023.  Jury; discharged before verdict; effect; record.In case a jury is discharged on account of sickness of a juror, or other accident or calamity requiring their discharge, or after they have been kept so long together that there is no probability of agreeing, the court shall, upon directing the discharge, order that the reasons for such discharge be entered upon the record and such discharge shall be without prejudice to the prosecution.Source   G.S.1873, c. 58, § 485, p. 830;   R.S.1913, § 9126;   C.S.1922, § 10151;   C.S.1929, § 29-2023;   R.S.1943, § 29-2023;  Laws 2018, LB193, § 58;  Laws 2020, LB387, § 45.  Annotations  1. Discharge without prejudice 2. Basis for discharge 3. Journal entry 4. Miscellaneous 1. Discharge without prejudice A mistrial because of disagreement of the jury is without prejudice to the right of the state to retry the defendant. State v. Fromkin, 174 Neb. 849, 120 N.W.2d 25 (1963). In a criminal trial where the jury is discharged in accordance with this section, such discharge is without prejudice to the prosecution. State v. Hutter, 145 Neb. 798, 18 N.W.2d 203 (1945). 2. Basis for discharge Drunkenness of juror is an accident or calamity requiring discharge of jury. Fetty v. State, 119 Neb. 619, 230 N.W. 440 (1930). Serious illness of juror's wife and death of his child was sufficient to warrant discharge of jury. Salistean v. State, 115 Neb. 838, 215 N.W. 107 (1927). Where biased juror is discovered during progress of trial, court may discharge jury. Quinton v. State, 112 Neb. 684, 200 N.W. 881 (1924). Insanity of juror authorizes discharge, being an "accident or calamity." Davis v. State, 51 Neb. 301, 70 N.W. 984 (1897). 3. Journal entry Entry of reasons on journal should be ordered; "sickness" must be of a sudden and calamitous nature. Conklin v. State, 25 Neb. 784, 41 N.W. 788 (1889). Record must show necessity for discharge. State v. Schuchardt, 18 Neb. 454, 25 N.W. 722 (1885). 4. Miscellaneous Holding accused for trial after discharge of jury because of the jury's inability to agree is not former jeopardy. Sutter v. State, 105 Neb. 144, 179 N.W. 414 (1920). Court has large discretion as to length of time jury shall be kept together in consultation. Russell v. State, 66 Neb. 497, 92 N.W. 751 (1902).
NE Code § 29-2024 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2024 - Verdict; poll.

29-2024.  Verdict; poll.When the jury have agreed upon their verdict they must be conducted into court by the officer having them in charge. Before the verdict is accepted the jury may be polled at the request of either the prosecuting attorney or the defendant.Source   G.S.1873, c. 58, § 486, p. 830;   R.S.1913, § 9127;   C.S.1922, § 10152;   C.S.1929, § 29-2024;   R.S.1943, § 29-2024. Annotations  1. Reception of verdict 2. Polling of jury 3. Miscellaneous 1. Reception of verdict Irregularity in receiving verdict in absence of counsel may be waived. Hyslop v. State, 159 Neb. 802, 68 N.W.2d 698 (1955). Verdict received in vacation time is not a "privy verdict." Manion v. State, 104 Neb. 130, 175 N.W. 1013 (1920). Reception of verdict in criminal case is governed by this section. Evers v. State, 84 Neb. 708, 121 N.W. 1005 (1909). Verdict must be given in open court. Longfellow v. State, 10 Neb. 105, 4 N.W. 420 (1880). Jury may not return instead of verdict a statement that they have agreed to disagree. Green v. State, 10 Neb. 102, 4 N.W. 422 (1880). Verdict signed by all jurors is good. Clough v. State, 7 Neb. 320 (1878). Verdict finding defendant guilty, without adding "in manner and form," etc., is good. Preuit v. State, 5 Neb. 377 (1877). 2. Polling of jury A defendant may waive his right to have the jury polled. When upon inquiry by the court he replies in the negative, the right is waived. State v. Hiatt, 190 Neb. 315, 207 N.W.2d 678 (1973). Jury need not be polled unless requested by defendant or prosecuting attorney. Feddern v. State, 79 Neb. 651, 113 N.W. 127 (1907). 3. Miscellaneous Verdict should be certain, not ambiguous; sufficient if in light of record meaning is clear beyond reasonable doubt. Keeler v. State, 73 Neb. 441, 103 N.W. 64 (1905). Verdict is void which omits name of guilty party. Williams v. State, 6 Neb. 334 (1877).
NE Code § 29-2025 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2025 - Lesser included offense; attempt to commit; form of verdict.

29-2025.  Lesser included offense; attempt to commit; form of verdict.Upon an indictment for an offense consisting of different degrees the jury may find the defendant not guilty of the degree charged, and guilty of any degree inferior thereto; and upon an indictment for any offense the jury may find the defendant not guilty of the offense but guilty of an attempt to commit the same, where such an attempt is an offense.Source   G.S.1873, c. 58, § 487, p. 830;   R.S.1913, § 9128;   C.S.1922, § 10153;   C.S.1929, § 29-2025;   R.S.1943, § 29-2025. Annotations  Where under statute attempt to commit defined offense is punishable, instruction on attempt is not erroneous even though defendant is not formally charged with attempt. State v. Ambrose, 192 Neb. 285, 220 N.W.2d 18 (1974). The unlawful operation of a motor vehicle is not necessarily an included offense in prosecution for motor vehicle homicide. Olney v. State, 169 Neb. 717, 100 N.W.2d 838 (1960). Charge of shooting with intent to wound may include lesser offense of assault or assault and battery. Moore v. State, 147 Neb. 390, 23 N.W.2d 552 (1946). It is not error to fail to submit question of accused's guilt of lesser offense where evidence is not such as to warrant such verdict. Davis v. State, 116 Neb. 90, 215 N.W. 785 (1927). Jury may find accused not guilty of offense charged but guilty of attempt to commit same where such attempt is an offense. In re Resler, 115 Neb. 335, 212 N.W. 765 (1927). Provisions of section extend to subsequently created offenses. Mulloy v. State, 58 Neb. 204, 78 N.W. 525 (1890). Verdict of guilty of manslaughter on charge of murder in first degree is valid, though it fails to specifically negative fact that crime was of higher grade. Williams v. State, 6 Neb. 334 (1877).
NE Code § 29-2026.01 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2026.01 - Verdict; finding of value of property; when required.

29-2026.01.  Verdict; finding of value of property; when required.When the indictment charges an offense against the property of another by larceny, embezzlement or obtaining under false pretenses, the jury, on conviction, shall ascertain and declare in its verdict the value of the property stolen, embezzled, or falsely obtained.Source  Laws 1965, c. 146, § 1, p. 488. Annotations  In a theft case where a jury trial has been waived, the value of the property is one of the facts and elements of the crime to be determined by the trial judge, and this section is not applicable. State v. Reed, 228 Neb. 645, 423 N.W.2d 777 (1988). Restitution, in a larceny case, can be ordered only if the jury determines by verdict the value of property stolen. State v. Frandsen, 199 Neb. 546, 260 N.W.2d 206 (1977). This section not applicable where crime charged is that of receiving stolen property at a value of more than one hundred dollars. State v. McKee, 183 Neb. 754, 163 N.W.2d 434 (1969). Verdict of jury in larceny case must determine value of property stolen. State v. Houp, 182 Neb. 298, 154 N.W.2d 465 (1967). Requirement that jury fix the amount obtained by false pretense in its verdict was not in effect at time of commission of offense or at time of trial. State v. Swanson, 179 Neb. 693, 140 N.W.2d 618 (1966). In a theft case, the trial court erred in limiting the jury's consideration of value and in submitting a form of verdict which precluded a jury from making a specific finding of value and conveying that fact to the judge in its verdict. State v. Long, 2 Neb. App. 847, 516 N.W.2d 273 (1994). Double jeopardy protection not violated where court at first trial failed to notify jury of need to ascertain value of property stolen and set aside guilty verdict ordering defendant retried although court knew of error while jury was out. Houp v. State, 427 F.2d 254 (8th Cir. 1970).
NE Code § 29-2028 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2028 - Sexual assault; testimony; corroboration not required.

29-2028.  Sexual assault; testimony; corroboration not required.The testimony of a person who is a victim of a sexual assault as defined in sections 28-319 to 28-320.01 shall not require corroboration.Source   Laws 1989, LB 443, § 1;  Laws 2006, LB 1199, § 13.  Annotations  Testimony concerning corroboration in sexual offense cases is not rendered inadmissible under this section, but is no longer required. State v. Williamson, 235 Neb. 960, 458 N.W.2d 236 (1990). An appellate court concluded that uncorroborated testimony would be sufficient to convict a defendant of sexual assault as defined in sections 28-319 to 28-320.01 in any case wherein the fact finder determined that such testimony was sufficient evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Luff, 18 Neb. App. 422, 783 N.W.2d 625 (2010). A jury instruction was found to be a correct statement of the law under this section. The instructions, when taken together, advised the jury that while corroboration of the victim's testimony was not required, corroboration, or the lack thereof, could be considered by the jury in determining the weight to be given to the testimony, although the concurring opinion cautioned against routinely giving instruction at issue in this case. State v. Schmidt, 16 Neb. App. 741, 750 N.W.2d 390 (2008).
NE Code § 29-2102 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2102 - New trial; affidavits; when required; motion; hearing.

29-2102.  New trial; affidavits; when required; motion; hearing.(1) The grounds set forth in subdivisions (2), (3), and (6) of section 29-2101 shall be supported by affidavits showing the truth of such grounds, and the grounds may be controverted by affidavits. The ground set forth in subdivision (5) of section 29-2101 shall be supported by evidence of the truth of the ground in the form of affidavits, depositions, or oral testimony.(2) If the motion for new trial and supporting documents fail to set forth sufficient facts, the court may, on its own motion, dismiss the motion without a hearing. If the motion for new trial and supporting documents set forth facts which, if true, would materially affect the substantial rights of the defendant, the court shall cause notice of the motion to be served on the prosecuting attorney, grant a hearing on the motion, and determine the issues and make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.(3) In considering a motion for new trial based on the grounds set forth in subdivision (5) of section 29-2101, if the court finds that there is evidence materially affecting the substantial rights of the defendant which he or she could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at trial, the court may, upon the motion of any party and following a hearing, vacate and set aside the judgment and release the person from custody or grant a new trial as appropriate.Source   G.S.1873, c. 58, § 492, p. 831;   R.S.1913, § 9132;   C.S.1922, § 10157;   C.S.1929, § 29-2102;   R.S.1943, § 29-2102;  Laws 2001, LB 659, § 12;  Laws 2015, LB245, § 1.  Annotations  A de novo standard of review applies when an appellate court is reviewing a trial court's dismissal of a motion for new trial under this section without conducting an evidentiary hearing. State v. Cross, 297 Neb. 154, 900 N.W.2d 1 (2017). Misconduct of county attorney may be sustained by affidavits. Mulder v. State, 152 Neb. 795, 42 N.W.2d 858 (1950). This section does not apply to newly discovered evidence discovered after adjournment of term. Carlsen v. State, 129 Neb. 84, 261 N.W. 339 (1935). Facts may be such as to require entire record to be limited to affidavits. Scott v. State, 121 Neb. 232, 236 N.W. 608 (1931). Affidavits must be preserved in form of bill of exceptions to be available to complaining party on appeal. Wright v. State, 45 Neb. 44, 63 N.W. 147 (1895).
NE Code § 29-2104 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2104 - Arrest of judgment; grounds.

29-2104.  Arrest of judgment; grounds.A motion in arrest of judgment may be granted by the court for either of the following causes: (1) That the grand jury which found the indictment had no legal authority to inquire into the offense charged, by reason of it not being within the jurisdiction of the court; or (2) that the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute an offense.Source   G.S.1873, c. 58, § 493, p. 831;   R.S.1913, § 9134;   C.S.1922, § 10159;   C.S.1929, § 29-2104;   R.S.1943, § 29-2104. Annotations  Challenge to certainty and particularity of information which states an offense in the words of the statute may be made by a motion to quash, but not by a motion in arrest of judgment. State v. Abraham, 189 Neb. 728, 205 N.W.2d 342 (1973). A defendant who pleads not guilty without having raised the question of the lack of or a defective verification waives the defect. State v. Gilman, 181 Neb. 390, 148 N.W.2d 847 (1967). Striking motion in arrest of judgment from files instead of overruling it was not prejudicial error. Kopp v. State, 124 Neb. 363, 246 N.W. 718 (1933). Motion in arrest of judgment should be sustained when information is insufficient to charge offense under statute. Korab v. State, 93 Neb. 66, 139 N.W. 717 (1913). Selection of jury from old list prepared during preceding year was not a ground for motion in arrest of judgment, where plea in abatement was filed raising question but ruling thereon was not obtained. Goldsberry v. State, 92 Neb. 211, 137 N.W. 1116 (1912). Sufficiency of information which charges no offense may be challenged, though plea of guilty was entered. Smith v. State, 68 Neb. 204, 94 N.W. 106 (1903). Motion applies only to jurisdiction of court and sufficiency of indictment. Dodge v. People, 4 Neb. 220 (1876).
NE Code § 29-2105 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2105 - Arrest of judgment; defect of form insufficient.

29-2105.  Arrest of judgment; defect of form insufficient.No judgment can be arrested for a defect of form.Source   G.S.1873, c. 58, § 494, p. 832;   R.S.1913, § 9135;   C.S.1922, § 10160;   C.S.1929, § 29-2105;   R.S.1943, § 29-2105. Annotations A defendant who pleads not guilty without having raised the question of the lack of or a defective verification waives the defect. State v. Gilman, 181 Neb. 390, 148 N.W.2d 847 (1967).
NE Code § 29-2106 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2106 - Arrest of judgment; effect.

29-2106.  Arrest of judgment; effect.The effect of allowing a motion in arrest of judgment shall be to place the defendant in the same position with respect to the prosecution as before the indictment was found. If, from the evidence on the trial, there shall be sufficient reason to believe him guilty of an offense, the court shall order him to enter into a recognizance with sufficient security, conditioned for his appearance at the first day of the next term of the same court; otherwise the defendant shall be discharged.Source   G.S.1873, c. 58, § 494, p. 832;   R.S.1913, § 9135;   C.S.1922, § 10160;   C.S.1929, § 29-2105;   R.S.1943, § 29-2106.
NE Code § 29-2204.03 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2204.03 - Study of offender; commitment to Department of Correctional Services; written report; costs.

29-2204.03.  Study of offender; commitment to Department of Correctional Services; written report; costs.(1) When the court is of the opinion that imprisonment may be appropriate but desires more detailed information as a basis for determining the sentence to be imposed than has been provided by the presentence report required by section 29-2261, the court shall commit an offender to the Department of Correctional Services for a period not exceeding ninety days. The department shall conduct a complete study of the offender during that time, inquiring into such matters as his or her previous delinquency or criminal experience, social background, capabilities, and mental, emotional, and physical health and the rehabilitative resources or programs which may be available to suit his or her needs.(2) By the expiration of the period of commitment or by the expiration of such additional time as the court shall grant, not exceeding a further period of ninety days, the offender shall be returned to the court for sentencing and the court shall be provided with a written report of the results of the study, including whatever recommendations the department believes will be helpful to a proper resolution of the case. After receiving the report and the recommendations, the court shall proceed to sentence the offender in accordance with section 29-2204 or 29-2204.02. The term of the sentence shall run from the date of original commitment under this section.(3) In order to encourage the use of this procedure in appropriate cases, all costs incurred during the period the defendant is held in a state institution under this section shall be a responsibility of the state and the county shall be liable only for the cost of delivering the defendant to the institution and the cost of returning him or her to the appropriate court for sentencing or such other disposition as the court may then deem appropriate.Source Laws 2015, LB605, § 62. Annotations Both this section and section 29-2261 give the court the discretion to order further evaluations of the defendant prior to sentencing when it deems such evaluations necessary for determining the sentence to be imposed; neither statute provides that a defendant can or should request the evaluations. Trial counsel cannot be deficient for failing to request evaluations that the court itself could have ordered, but in its discretion deemed unnecessary. State v. St. Cyr, 26 Neb. App. 61, 916 N.W.2d 753 (2018).
NE Code § 29-2206.01 (2021)
2021 Nebraska Revised Statutes|Chapter 29 - Criminal Procedure|29-2206.01 - Fine and costs; payment of installments; violation; penalty; hearing.

29-2206.01.  Fine and costs; payment of installments; violation; penalty; hearing.Installments provided for in section 29-2206 shall be paid pursuant to the order entered by the court or magistrate. Any person who fails to comply with the terms of such order shall be liable for punishment for contempt, unless such person has the leave of the court or magistrate in regard to such noncompliance or such person requests a hearing pursuant to section 29-2412 and establishes at such hearing that he or she is financially unable to pay.Source   Laws 1971, LB 1010, § 3;  Laws 2017, LB259, § 6.