Opinion ID: 6332119
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: conclusion

Text: For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the district court granting Bixby’s motion for absolute discharge and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Freudenberg, J., concurring. I agree with and join the majority opinion but write separately because I believe Bixby invited and consented to the trial date that he complains on appeal resulted in a violation of his statutory right to a speedy trial. At a hearing held on October 14, 2020, the State requested that the court set a date for trial. The State reminded the court of the 6-month deadline, stating that “right now we’re within the six months we have from the filing of the mandate for speedy trial purposes.” The State offered to be available for trial whenever the court set the date. Bixby’s counsel did not comment regarding the State’s speedy trial calculations, but he opposed setting a trial date at that time because certain pretrial motions had not yet been decided. The court acceded to the request of Bixby’s counsel that a trial date not yet be set. At a later hearing held October 26, 2020, the court took under advisement a motion to vacate and indicated it wished to set a date for trial. Counsel for Bixby again demurred to setting a trial date, because additional pretrial motions were not yet decided and a pretrial conference might be needed. But this time the court insisted that a date be set. When the court asked the State when the case needed to be tried by, the State reiterated its understanding that the speedy trial date would be February 26, 2021. Again, counsel for Bixby did not expressly comment on this calculation, instead stating collegially, “Do we want to do it early February?” The court proposed an earlier trial date of January 26, 2021. Bixby’s counsel responded he had been planning to be out - 122 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 311 Nebraska Reports STATE v. BIXBY Cite as 311 Neb. 110 of town but could make that date work. The court reporter inquired again as to “the cutoff date,” to which the court repeated, “February 26.” Bixby’s counsel then said, “January 26 is fine. I’ll make it happen. I was thinking in February, but January 26.” In sum, the court and the State attempted to engage in transparent discussions with Bixby’s counsel to set a date agreeable to everyone, which would not trigger statutory discharge. Bixby’s counsel initially opposed setting a trial date; repeatedly made no attempt to correct the State’s and the trial court’s expressed understanding of when the statutory speedy trial date would run; agreed to the January 26, 2021, date, while noting he “was thinking in February”; and then he silently waited until a week before the January 26 trial date before filing a motion for absolute discharge based on the statutory right to a speedy trial. I oppose such gamesmanship. To reiterate the reasoning of my concurring opinion in State v. Coomes, 1 the defendant should not be able to complain of an alleged statutory speedy trial violation the defendant was a party to. While I agree with the majority opinion that the speedy trial clock did not run, it is my opinion that a calculation of the excludable periods was not necessary. Bixby waived any objection to the statutory 6-month speedy trial period based on a trial date that was set with his active consent. 1 State v. Coomes, 309 Neb. 749, 962 N.W.2d 510 (2021) (Freudenberg, J., concurring).