(1) In addition to any other right to appeal, the state shall have the right to appeal from an order granting a motion for the return of seized property and to suppress evidence in the manner provided in sections 29-824 to 29-826.
(2) If such motion has been granted in 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
Cited in
80
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case:
State v. Anderson, 296 N.W.2d 440 (Neb. 1980).
State v. Anderson, 296 N.W.2d 440 (Neb. 1980).
· cites it 11× “Pursuant to the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Reissue 1979), the State appealed the decision to a single judge of the Nebraska Supreme Court who, on April 12, 1978, rendered a judgment and opinion affirming the District Court’s order except as to the testimony of Lon…”
State v. March, 658 N.W.2d 20 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 10× “During the early stages of the proceedings, the trial court granted March’s motion to suppress evidence located during execution of a search warrant, but such ruling was reversed by a single judge of the Nebraska Court of Appeals pursuant to the authority contained in Neb. Rev.…”
State v. Shurter, 468 N.W.2d 628 (Neb. 1991).
· cites it 5× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Reissue 1989). Section 29-824 further provides that such review is conducted by a single judge of the Supreme Court.”
In re Interest of L.T., 886 N.W.2d 525 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 2× “2014) (procedure for State to appeal felony sentence as excessively lenient); and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Reissue 2008) (procedure for State to appeal order granting motion to suppress evidence or for return of seized property).”
State v. Havlat, 385 N.W.2d 436 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 4× “A subsequent search of the defendant's home and garage in Milford, Nebraska, pursuant to a search warrant, produced two seed-starter trays, marijuana seeds, and other miscellaneous marijuana paraphernalia, not described since this evidence was later suppressed at the close of…”
State v. Hayes, 639 N.W.2d 418 (Neb. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “The State appealed the court’s decision to suppress Hayes’ statements to a single judge of this court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Cum. Supp. 2000).”
State v. Hood, 884 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 8× “The district court found the time during which the appeal was pending was excludable from the statutory speedy trial calculation and denied the motion for absolute discharge.”
State v. Reha, 686 N.W.2d 80 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The State appeals pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Cum. Supp. 2002), which provides for review by a single judge of this court.”
State v. Pope, 224 N.W.2d 521 (Neb. 1974).
· cites it 8× “We note that section 29-824, R.R.S.1943, gives the State the right to appeal from an order sustaining a motion to suppress.”
State v. Andersen, 440 N.W.2d 203 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 2× “In a single-judge opinion, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Reissue 1985), Judge Shanahan analyzed and explained the Nix rule in State v.”
State v. Vermuele, 453 N.W.2d 441 (Neb. 1990).
· cites it 3× “This appeal was brought for review before a single judge of the Supreme Court pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-824 et seq. (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Pointer, 402 N.W.2d 268 (Neb. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824 (Reissue 1985) *896 has been construed to make a lower court’s ruling that such statements are not admissible appealable, as to the State, in an interim appeal.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-824(2) — 2 cases
State v. March, 658 N.W.2d 20 (Neb. 2003).
“During the early stages of the proceedings, the trial court granted March’s motion to suppress evidence located during execution of a search warrant, but such ruling was reversed by a single judge of the Nebraska Court of Appeals pursuant to the authority contained in Neb. Rev.…”
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.