(1) In addition to any other rights of appeal, the state shall have the right to appeal from an order granting a motion for the suppression of statements alleged to be involuntary or in violation of the fifth or sixth amendments of the Constitution of the United States in the manner provided in this section.
(2) If such motion has been granted in the district court, the Attorney General or the county attorney or prosecuting attorney with the consent of the Attorney General may file his or her application with the Clerk of the Supreme Court asking for a summary review of the order granting the motion. The review shall be made by a judge of the Court of Appeals at chambers upon such notice, briefs, and argument as the judge directs, after which such judge shall enter his or her order affirming, reversing, or modifying the order submitted for review, and upon any trial on the general issue thereafter, the parties and the trial court shall be bound by such order. Upon conviction after trial the defendant may on appeal challenge the correctness of the order by the judge.
(3) If such motion has been granted in the county court, the Attorney General or the county attorney or prosecuting attorney may file his or her application with the clerk of the district court in the district in which the motion has been granted asking for a summary review of the order granting the motion. The review shall be made by a judge of the district court upon such notice, briefs, and arguments as the judge directs, after which such judge shall enter his or her order affirming, reversing, or modifying the order submitted for review, and upon any trial on the general issue thereafter the parties and the trial court shall be bound by such order. Upon conviction after trial the defendant may on appeal challenge the correctness of the order by the judge.
Notes of Decisions
In re Interest of Tyrone K., 887 N.W.2d 489 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 2× “It is not within the province of the courts to read a meaning into a statute that is not there.35 Considering §§ 29-1816 and 43-274 together, we observe that when enacting L.”
State v. Hayes, 639 N.W.2d 418 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “In the case of a defendant’s successful motion in the district court to suppress evidence, the motion is not finally granted or determined, unless there is no appeal, until a judge of the Court of Appeals has decided, the matter under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-116 (Cum. Supp. 2000).”
State v. Staten, 469 N.W.2d 112 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-116 and 29-824 (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Relford, 623 N.W.2d 343 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “This single-judge review is pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-116 (Cum. Supp. 2000).”
State v. Recek, 641 N.W.2d 391 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 2× “A county attorney is permitted to file an application to the trial court seeking leave to appeal within 20 days after a final order is entered in a cause.”
State v. Pettit, 417 N.W.2d 3 (Neb. 1987).
“§ 29-116 (Reissue 1985). SUPPRESSION OF STATEMENTS ■ In the motion to suppress his statements to law enforcement officers, Pettit alleged that his statements were involuntary and were obtained in denial of Pettit’s privilege against self-incrimination, contrary to the provisions…”
State v. Haywood, 439 N.W.2d 511 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 2× “A review hearing was held before a single judge of this court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-116 (Reissue 1985). The suppression order is reversed.”
State v. Nash, 421 N.W.2d 41 (Neb. 1988).
· cites it 2× “This is an interlocutory appeal by the State under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-116 (Reissue 1985) to review the order of the district court sustaining the defendant’s motion to suppress statements made by him to state patrolmen on February 17,1987.”
State v. Tamerius, 449 N.W.2d 535 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 2× “This is an interlocutory appeal by the State under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-116 (Reissue 1985) to review the order of the district court sustaining the defendant’s motion to suppress a confession made by him to a law enforcement officer on May 4, 1989.”
State v. Weikle, 474 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-116 (Reissue 1989), the State seeks interlocutory review of the district court’s order of July 3,1991, which granted the defendant’s motion to suppress statements made by the defendant while he was in his prison cell and overheard through the…”
State v. Vaida, 510 N.W.2d 389 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Its right to appeal suppression rulings regarding statements is based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-116 (Supp. 1991), which reads: In addition to any other rights of appeal, the state shall have the right to appeal from an order granting a motion for the suppression of statements…”
State v. Dickson, 389 N.W.2d 785 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 2× “From the Hall County District Court’s order sustaining the defendant’s motion to suppress, the State brings an interlocutory appeal, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-116 (Reissue 1985), before a single judge of this court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.