29-2023. Jury; discharged before verdict; effect; record.
In case a jury shall be discharged on account of sickness of a juror, or other accident or calamity requiring their discharge, or after they have been kept so long together that there is no probability of agreeing, the court shall, upon directing the discharge, order that the reasons for such discharge shall be entered upon the record and such discharge shall be without prejudice to the prosecution.
Source
Annotations
1. Discharge without prejudice
2. Basis for discharge
3. Journal entry
4. Miscellaneous
1. Discharge without prejudice
A mistrial because of disagreement of the jury is without prejudice to the right of the state to retry the defendant. State v. Fromkin, 174 Neb. 849, 120 N.W.2d 25 (1963).
In a criminal trial where the jury is discharged in accordance with this section, such discharge is without prejudice to the prosecution. State v. Hutter, 145 Neb. 798, 18 N.W.2d 203 (1945).
2. Basis for discharge
Drunkenness of juror is an accident or calamity requiring discharge of jury. Fetty v. State, 119 Neb. 619, 230 N.W. 440 (1930).
Serious illness of juror's wife and death of his child was sufficient to warrant discharge of jury. Salistean v. State, 115 Neb. 838, 215 N.W. 107 (1927).
Where biased juror is discovered during progress of trial, court may discharge jury. Quinton v. State, 112 Neb. 684, 200 N.W. 881 (1924).
Insanity of juror authorizes discharge, being an "accident or calamity." Davis v. State, 51 Neb. 301, 70 N.W. 984 (1897).
3. Journal entry
Entry of reasons on journal should be ordered; "sickness" must be of a sudden and calamitous nature. Conklin v. State, 25 Neb. 784, 41 N.W. 788 (1889).
Record must show necessity for discharge. State v. Schuchardt, 18 Neb. 454, 25 N.W. 722 (1885).
4. Miscellaneous
Holding accused for trial after discharge of jury because of the jury's inability to agree is not former jeopardy. Sutter v. State, 105 Neb. 144, 179 N.W. 414 (1920).
Court has large discretion as to length of time jury shall be kept together in consultation. Russell v. State, 66 Neb. 497, 92 N.W. 751 (1902).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.