Jestin C. Holland was charged in November 2023 with municipal assault and battery and disorderly conduct in Omaha following an alleged September 2023 altercation. Three days before his December plea hearing, Douglas County prosecutors filed a separate complaint charging Holland with second-degree felony assault for the same incident, later upgrading it to first-degree assault. Holland pleaded no contest to disorderly conduct for a $200 fine while prosecutors dismissed the municipal assault charge with prejudice. He then argued the felony prosecution violated double jeopardy protections.
Writing for the court, Justice Papik rejected Holland's argument that jeopardy attached to the dismissed assault charge. 'The county court had no power to find Holland guilty of that charge at the plea hearing—Holland had entered a not guilty plea to that charge during his arraignment, he never withdrew that plea, and no trial had taken place,' Papik wrote. The court emphasized that jeopardy only attaches when a defendant faces actual risk of conviction, which never occurred with the dismissed municipal assault charge.
The court delivered its sharpest criticism of a federal circuit opinion Holland cited for support. 'Given its questionable foundations, we are not persuaded that we should follow Mintz,' Papik wrote, referring to a 1994 Tenth Circuit decision that found jeopardy attached to dismissed charges. The Nebraska justices noted that when traced to its origins, the Mintz decision's citation chain led back to a case where 'double jeopardy was not even at issue.'
Douglas County District Judge Shelly R. Stratman had denied Holland's plea in bar motion in March 2025, relying on federal circuit precedent that distinguished between charges actually adjudicated and those merely dismissed as part of plea negotiations. The district court determined Holland was never at risk of conviction on the assault charge because the county court made no factual findings on its merits. Holland appealed directly to the state supreme court, as plea in bar denials are immediately appealable under Nebraska law.
Holland's defense team argued that the municipal assault and state felony charges constituted the 'same offense' under double jeopardy analysis, and that his plea agreement should have precluded further prosecution. But the supreme court focused on whether jeopardy had attached at all. 'Holland's potential innocence as to assault and battery was not presented to the county court either; the prosecution moved to dismiss the charge without consideration of its merits,' Papik explained.
The ruling aligns Nebraska with the overwhelming majority of federal circuits that have addressed the issue. The court cited decisions from the Second, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, plus several state supreme courts, all holding that jeopardy does not attach to charges dismissed pursuant to plea agreements. 'Mintz is clearly an outlier holding,' the court observed, listing nine federal circuits and multiple state courts that have reached the opposite conclusion.
The decision leaves open potential relief for Holland under breach of plea agreement theories, which were not addressed in this appeal. 'Nothing in this decision should be understood to foreclose Holland from seeking relief in the district court based on the plea agreement,' Papik wrote. The case now returns to district court where Holland faces first-degree assault charges that could carry significant prison time if convicted.