The distinction between a motion to quash and a motion to suppress is not mere form over substance. The filing of a motion to quash clearly notifies the State that the defendant's challenge is to the propriety of the entire proceedings. In contrast to a motion to quash, a motion to suppress seeks to exclude certain evidence from being presented at trial. State v. Kanarick, 257 Neb. 358, 598 N.W.2d 430 (1999).

Failure to attack indictment or information prior to trial is a waiver of any defects therein which are not jurisdictional. State ex rel. Gossett v. O'Grady, 137 Neb. 824, 291 N.W. 497 (1940).

Where different counts in information are properly joined, and evidence is offered to sustain each, an election will not be required. Poston v. State, 83 Neb. 240, 119 N.W. 520 (1909).

A plea in abatement is a device whereby indictment or information can be attacked. Ronzzo v. Sigler, 235 F.Supp. 839 (D. Neb. 1964).