State v. Andersen (1989)

As we státed in State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187, 195-96 , 440 N.W.2d 203, 211 (1989): The constitutional right to a speedy trial and the statutory implementation of that right under § 29-1207 exist independently of each other.

(Citation omitted.) State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187, 191 , 440 N.W.2d 203, 209 (1989).

Laws, L.B. 443, as recognized in State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203, 205 (1989)); see also Boles v. Smith, 37 Tenn. 105, 107 (1857) (“By the term party, in general, is meant one having a right to control the proceedings, to make a defence [sic], to adduce and cross-examine witnesses, and to appeal from the judgment.”).

United States v. Brookins, 614 F.2d 1037, 1040 (5th Cir. 1980) (“the police must show that when the illegality occurred they possessed and were actively pursuing the evidence or leads that would have led to the discovery of the challenged witness”); see United States v. Thomas, 524 F.3d 855, 858-59 (8th Cir. 2008) (“the government was actively pursuing a substantial, alternate line of investigation at the time of the constitutional violation”); Jefferson v. Fountain, 382 F.3…

See Hyde v. State, 275 Ga. 693 ( 572 SE2d 562 ) (2002) (discovery of *626 witness at murder trial inevitable as part of lawful investigation into the murder, even though document identifying witness suppressed); State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187, 200 ( 440 NW2d 203 ) (1989) (allowing testimony of sexual abuse victims under inevitable discovery doctrine, even though address book identifying victims suppressed, where evidence indicated that boys would otherwise have been discove…

Laws, L.B. 443, as recognized in State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203, 205 (1989), the Nebraska Supreme Court provided the following analysis: "Party” is a technical word with a precise legal meaning.

This court held: When a defendant has sought and obtained an indefinite continuance, it is his or her affirmative duty to end the continuance by giving notice of request for trial, as outlined in [State v.] Andersen, [ 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203 *326 (1989)].

Similarly, in State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187, 201 , 440 N.W.2d 203, 214 (1989), we said: A trial court’s ruling on a motion for consolidation of prosecutions properly joinable will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.

In determining whether a trial court’s findings on a motion to suppress are clearly erroneous, this court recognizes the trial court as the trier of fact and may take into consideration that the trial court has observed witnesses testifying regarding such motion. *535 State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187, 199 , 440 N.W.2d 203, 213 (1989); State v. Boysaw, 228 Neb. 316 , 422 N.W.2d 346 (1988).

See State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203 (1989). (e) Hiding in Church Bathroom Crowl argues that the district court should have excluded testimony from J.R. about L.R. hiding in the bathroom after church to avoid Crowl.

See, e.g., State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203 (1989).

See State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203 (1989).

See State v. Narcisse, 231 Neb. 805 , 438 N.W.2d 743 (1989) (superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203 (1989)).

See State v. Anderson, 232 Neb. 187, 440 N.W.2d 203 (1989) (defendant may terminate his waiver of speedy trial by filing written notice with clerk of court and serving prosecutor; upon termination, 6-months begins anew).

See, State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203 (1989); State v. Harper, 218 Neb. 870 , 359 N.W.2d 806 (1984); Tyrrell v. State, 173 Neb. 859 , 115 N.W.2d 459 (1962); Johnson v. Airport Authority, 173 Neb. 801 , 115 N.W.2d 426 (1962); Sump v. Omaha Public Power Dist., 168 Neb. 120 , 95 N.W.2d 209 (1959); Johnson v. State, 112 Neb. 530 , 199 N.W. 808 (1924); Dawson v. State, 96 Neb.

See State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203 (1989).

See State v. Andersen, 232 Neb. 187 , 440 N.W.2d 203 (1989).