2. Defendant in jeopardy
The purpose of an appellate review is to provide an authoritative exposition of the law to serve as precedent in future cases. State v. Falcon, 260 Neb. 119, 615 N.W.2d 436 (2000).
Scope and purpose of review of proceedings hereunder is to provide authoritative exposition of the law as precedent in subsequent cases. State v. Jennings, 195 Neb. 434, 238 N.W.2d 477 (1976).
Scope and purpose of review are to secure authoritative expositions of law to be used as precedent in similar cases. State v. Taylor, 179 Neb. 42, 136 N.W.2d 179 (1965).
Upon reversal of order to quash complaint, further proceedings were authorized. State v. Amick, 173 Neb. 770, 114 N.W.2d 893 (1962).
Function of Supreme Court is to determine law of the case. State v. Luttrell, 159 Neb. 641, 68 N.W.2d 332 (1955).
Judgment under this section cannot reverse or affect judgment of trial court, but is solely to obtain authoritative exposition of the law. State v. McDaniels, 145 Neb. 261, 16 N.W.2d 164 (1944).
Judgment hereunder does not in any manner affect judgment of district court, but merely determines law governing similar cases or those arising in future. State v. Kastle, 120 Neb. 758, 235 N.W. 458 (1931).
2. Defendant in jeopardy
Whether this section prevents an appellate court from reversing the judgment of the trial court turns on whether the trial court placed the defendant in jeopardy, not whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further action. State v. Kleckner, 291 Neb. 539, 867 N.W.2d 273 (2015).
Even though modifying a sentence on review does not violate constitutional principles of double jeopardy, because of the language of this section, a Nebraska appellate court does not have authority to modify a sentence in an error proceeding when the defendant has been "placed legally in jeopardy." State v. Hense, 276 Neb. 313, 753 N.W.2d 832 (2008).
The application of this section turns on whether the defendant has been placed in jeopardy by the trial court, not by whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars further action. State v. Vasquez, 271 Neb. 906, 716 N.W.2d 443 (2006).
Where defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled and he did not appeal, he has been placed in jeopardy and ruling in error proceedings could not affect him. State v. Weidner, 192 Neb. 161, 219 N.W.2d 742 (1974).
When defendant has been placed in jeopardy, error proceeding by state will not affect the judgment of the trial court. State v. Faircloth, 181 Neb. 333, 148 N.W.2d 187 (1967).
Remanded for proceedings after district court's ruling on motion to dismiss habitual criminal charges reversed. State v. Nance, 197 Neb. 257, 248 N.W.2d 339 (1976).
Dismissal of complaint on appeal was erroneous, for which judgment was reversed. State v. Ruggiere, 180 Neb. 869, 146 N.W.2d 373 (1966).
Exceptions of state were sustained in case involving jurisdiction over the trial of a youth under eighteen years. State v. McCoy, 145 Neb. 750, 18 N.W.2d 101 (1945).
Exceptions of state were sustained in case involving question of trial without jury by magistrates and police courts of misdemeanors. State v. Kacin, 123 Neb. 64, 241 N.W. 785 (1932).