Opinion ID: 1855985
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: cox's preliminary hearing

Text: Cox does not contend that evidence is insufficient to establish that a felony had been committed and probable cause to believe that he had committed the offense. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-506 (Reissue 1985) (felony charge and preliminary examination). Rather, Cox asserts that the district court erred in having [Cox] stand trial on Count III which was not bound over by the County Court without preliminary hearing or finding in District Court. Although the county court found insufficient evidence to bind Cox over to the district court for trial on the assault charge eventually embodied in count III of the information, the record unmistakably and conclusively shows that Cox was given a preliminary hearing in the district court on count III, the burn-assault charge. It has long been the rule in this jurisdiction that the discharge of one accused of crime by an examining magistrate following a preliminary hearing does not bar the refiling of the same or different charges before another magistrate. State v. Rubek, 220 Neb. 537, 539, 371 N.W.2d 115, 117 (1985). There is no prohibition, constitutional or otherwise, to a preliminary hearing in the district court on a felony charge alleged in an information, notwithstanding a county court's refusal to bind the defendant over to the district court for a trial after a preliminary hearing in the county court on the same felony charge subsequently filed in the district court. State v. Rubek, supra . Cox had a preliminary hearing in the district court. The assignment of error regarding a preliminary hearing is without merit.