reglab/statecodes huggingface dataset:
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-405 - Rule 405. Method of proving character; reputation or opinion; specific instances of conduct.

27-405.
Rule 405. Method of proving character; reputation or opinion; specific instances of conduct.
(1) In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct.
(2) In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 15.
Annotations
Although subsection (1)(a) of section 27-404 allows the accused to offer evidence of a pertinent trait of his or her character and allows the prosecution to rebut that evidence, this section limits the manner in which the evidence may be admitted. State v. Faust, 265 Neb. 845, 660 N.W.2d 844 (2003).
This section limits the defendant's evidence of character to evidence of opinion or reputation. But even when a defendant improperly offers specific instances of his or her good conduct, the prosecution may not counter by offering evidence of specific instances of bad conduct. State v. Faust, 265 Neb. 845, 660 N.W.2d 844 (2003).
Under this section, the prosecution's rebuttal witnesses may testify only to reputation or opinion. The witnesses may not be used to prove that specific instances of conduct occurred. State v. Faust, 265 Neb. 845, 660 N.W.2d 844 (2003).
When character is not an element of the crime or a defense, this section dictates that the only inquiry that can be made into specific instances of conduct is through cross-examination of the defendant's character witnesses, and during cross-examination, the prosecutor is limited to an inquiry whether the witness has heard of a given fact, misdeed, or criminal conviction. State v. Faust, 265 Neb. 845, 660 N.W.2d 844 (2003).
The language of this section changes the prior case law rule, that evidence of a homicide victim's propensity for violence ordinarily is admissible only in the form of reputation testimony, so that when character is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, it will also be admissible. State v. Sims, 213 Neb. 708, 331 N.W.2d 255 (1983).
Defendant's character witness was properly cross-examined on specific instances of defendant's prior convictions. State v. Eynon, 197 Neb. 734, 250 N.W.2d 658 (1977).
Under subsection (2) of this section, the accused in a criminal case may offer evidence of specific instances of conduct of the victim of the crime for the purpose of proving the victim was the first aggressor to substantiate the accused's self-defense claim. State v. Lewchuk, 4 Neb. App. 165, 539 N.W.2d 847 (1995).
The type of character evidence admissible under this section and section 27-608 does not include the opinion of an expert witness regarding the truthfulness of another witness based upon purported scientific studies. State v. Maggard, 1 Neb. App. 529, 502 N.W.2d 493 (1993).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-406 - Rule 406. Habit; routine practice; admissibility; method of proof.

27-406.
Rule 406. Habit; routine practice; admissibility; method of proof.
(1) Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
(2) Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 16.
Annotations
Evidence was insufficient to show a routine or habit within the meaning of this section, because a single incident did not establish a routine, and the relevance of the evidence depended on the claim that the actor engaged in a deliberate volitional act, not a habit. State v. Edwards, 278 Neb. 55, 767 N.W.2d 784 (2009).
Admissibility of habit evidence depends on the trial judge's evaluation of the particular facts and is thus reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Borley Storage & Transfer Co. v. Whitted, 271 Neb. 84, 710 N.W.2d 71 (2006).
The precise contours of how frequently and consistently a behavior must occur to rise to the level of habit cannot be easily defined or formulated, and as with other areas of relevancy, admissibility depends on the judge's evaluation of the particular facts of the case. The exercise of judicial discretion is implicit in determinations of relevancy and admissibility under this section, and as a result, the trial court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Under this section, the trial court determines whether the predicate evidence necessary to prove conduct by habit has been introduced. Habit may be shown by opinion or specific instances of conduct. It is within the trial court's discretion to determine if there is sufficient foundation for a witness to give his or her opinion about an issue in question. Habit evidence is relevant because such evidence makes it more probable that the person acted in a manner consistent with that habit. Hoffart v. Hodge, 9 Neb. App. 161, 609 N.W.2d 397 (2000).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-407 - Rule 407. Subsequent remedial measures.

27-407.
Rule 407. Subsequent remedial measures.
When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment. Negligence or culpable conduct, as used in this rule, shall include, but not be limited to, the manufacture or sale of a defective product.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 17;
Laws 1978, LB 665, § 7.
Annotations
The determination of feasibility includes a consideration of whether an action would have been effective and practical. McDermott v. Platte Cty. Ag. Socy., 245 Neb. 698, 515 N.W.2d 121 (1994).
This section does not require exclusion of evidence concerning subsequent repairs, alterations, or precautions, when such evidence is offered for the purpose of impeachment affecting credibility of the witness impeached. Rahmig v. Mosley Machinery Co., 226 Neb. 423, 412 N.W.2d 56 (1987).
Evidence of subsequent acts is admissible on the issue of feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted. In this case, testimony to the effect that erection of snow fences would not have been a feasible precautionary measure could properly be rebutted by evidence that, subsequent to the incident giving rise to this action, snow fences were erected. Kurz v. Dinklage Feed Yard, Inc., 205 Neb. 125, 286 N.W.2d 257 (1979).
"Feasibility" as used in this section includes effectiveness and practicality as well as possibility. Kurz v. Dinklage Feed Yard, Inc., 205 Neb. 125, 286 N.W.2d 257 (1979).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-409 - Rule 409. Payment of medical and similar expenses.

27-409.
Rule 409. Payment of medical and similar expenses.
Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical, hospital, or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is not admissible to prove liability for the injury.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 19.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-410 - Rule 410. Guilty plea; nolo contendere; offered plea; withdrawn plea; inadmissible; exceptions.

27-410.
Rule 410. Guilty plea; nolo contendere; offered plea; withdrawn plea; inadmissible; exceptions.
Evidence of a plea of guilty, later withdrawn, or a plea of nolo contendere, or of an offer to plead guilty or nolo contendere to the crime charged or any other crime, or of statements made in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers, is not admissible in any civil or criminal action, case, or proceeding against the person who made the plea or offer. This rule shall not apply to the introduction of voluntary and reliable statements made in court on the record in connection with any of the foregoing pleas or offers when offered for impeachment purposes or in a subsequent prosecution of the declarant for perjury or false statement.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 20.
Annotations
The evidentiary rule provided in this section, that a withdrawn guilty plea is not admissible in any civil or criminal action or proceeding against the person who made it, does not apply to the sentencing stage of a criminal proceeding. State v. Klappal, 218 Neb. 374, 355 N.W.2d 221 (1984).
Under some circumstances a plea of guilty entered by the defendant in a criminal action may be used against him as an admission in a subsequent action involving the same subject matter; a violation of a statute or ordinance enacted in the interest of public safety, while not negligence per se, is evidence of negligence. Schaefer v. McCreary, 216 Neb. 739, 345 N.W.2d 821 (1984).
The fact of conviction resulting from a nolo contendere plea may be used in a subsequent proceeding. In re Interest of Verle O., 13 Neb. App. 256, 691 N.W.2d 177 (2005).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-411 - Rule 411. Liability insurance.

27-411.
Rule 411. Liability insurance.
Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 21.
Annotations
The remote potential for bias of a witness on the basis of sharing the same insurance carrier as the defendant must be balanced against the prejudicial effect of its admission. Reimer v. Surgical Servs. of the Great Plains, P.C., 258 Neb. 671, 605 N.W.2d 777 (2000).
Although evidence of insurance is admissible for some other purposes under this section, where evidence is directed solely at showing the amount for which a party settled with its insurer and where there is no showing that they had represented the value of the damaged and discarded products to be less than was claimed in the suit or for which it obtained judgment, the evidence is an inadmissible compromise or settlement pursuant to section 27-408. Delicious Foods Co. v. Millard Warehouse, 244 Neb. 449, 507 N.W.2d 631 (1993).
Where the existence of insurance coverage is not relevant to any issue in the case, evidence of such coverage is inadmissible. Kresha v. Kresha, 216 Neb. 377, 344 N.W.2d 906 (1984).
Inadvertent mention of plaintiff's lack of health insurance is not prejudicial error requiring mistrial where it is not shown that jury inferred that plaintiff was incapable of paying expenses. Where indemnification of defendants does not logically follow from the fact that plaintiff lacked health insurance, it cannot be said that defendants were prejudiced. Bailey v. AMISUB, 1 Neb. App. 56, 489 N.W.2d 323 (1992).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-413 - Offense of sexual assault, defined.

27-413.
Offense of sexual assault, defined.
For purposes of sections 27-414 and 27-415, offense of sexual assault means sexual assault under section 28-319 or 28-320, sexual abuse by a school employee under section 28-316.01, sexual assault of a child under section 28-319.01 or 28-320.01, sexual assault by use of an electronic communication device under section 28-320.02, sexual abuse of an inmate or parolee under sections 28-322.01 to 28-322.03, sexual abuse of a protected individual under section 28-322.04, sexual abuse of a detainee under section 28-322.05, an attempt or conspiracy to commit any of the crimes listed in this section, or the commission of or conviction for a crime in another jurisdiction that is substantially similar to any crime listed in this section.
Source
Laws 2009, LB97, § 4;
Laws 2015, LB294, § 8;
Laws 2019, LB519, § 3;
Laws 2020, LB881, § 3.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-415 - Civil case; evidence of crimes in sexual assault cases.

27-415.
Civil case; evidence of crimes in sexual assault cases.
(1) In a civil case in which a claim for damages or other relief is predicated on a party's alleged commission of conduct constituting an offense of sexual assault, evidence of that party's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible if there is clear and convincing evidence otherwise admissible under the Nebraska Evidence Rules that the party committed the other offense or offenses. If admissible, such evidence may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.
(2) A party who intends to offer evidence under this section shall disclose the evidence to the party against whom it will be offered, including statements of witnesses or a summary of the substance of any testimony that is expected to be offered, at least fifteen days before the scheduled date of trial or at such later time as the court may allow for good cause.
(3) Before admitting evidence of a party's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault under this section, the court shall conduct a hearing outside the presence of any jury. At the hearing, the rules of evidence shall apply and the court shall apply a section 27-403 balancing and admit the evidence unless the risk of prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence. In assessing the balancing, the court may consider any relevant factor such as (a) the probability that the other offense occurred, (b) the proximity in time and intervening circumstances of the other offenses, and (c) the similarity of the other acts to the crime charged.
(4) This section shall not be construed to limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any other section of the Nebraska Evidence Rules.
Source
Laws 2009, LB97, § 6.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-501 - Rule 501. Privileges recognized only as provided.

27-501.
Rule 501. Privileges recognized only as provided.
Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or the State of Nebraska or provided by Act of Congress, or the Legislature of the State of Nebraska, by these rules or by other rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Nebraska which are not in conflict with laws governing such matters, no person has the privilege to:
(1) Refuse to be a witness; or
(2) Refuse to disclose any matter; or
(3) Refuse to produce any object or writing; or
(4) Prevent another from being a witness or disclosing any matter or producing any object or writing.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 22.
Annotations
An expert witness retained by one party may be compelled or will be allowed to testify to a matter of opinion upon request of the opposing party. IAFF Local 831 v. City of No. Platte, 215 Neb. 89, 337 N.W.2d 716 (1983).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-506 - Rule 506. Communications to clergyman; definitions; general rule of privilege; who may claim privilege.

27-506.
Rule 506. Communications to clergyman; definitions; general rule of privilege; who may claim privilege.
(1) As used in this rule:
(a) A clergyman is a minister, priest, rabbi, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the person consulting him; and
(b) A communication is confidential if made privately and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the purpose of the communication.
(2) A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in his professional character as spiritual advisor.
(3) The privilege may be claimed by the person, by his guardian or conservator, or by his personal representative if he is deceased. The clergyman may claim the privilege on behalf of the person. His authority so to do is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 26.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-508 - Rule 508. Trade secrets; privilege; protective measures.

27-508.
Rule 508. Trade secrets; privilege; protective measures.
A person has a privilege, which may be claimed by him or his agent or employee, to refuse to disclose and to prevent other persons from disclosing a trade secret owned by him, if the allowance of the privilege will not tend to conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. When disclosure is directed, the judge shall take such protective measures as the interests of the holder of the privilege and of the parties and the furtherance of justice may require.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 28.
Annotations
Procedure established for use by the Nebraska Public Service Commission when deciding whether to publicly disclose information which it has found to be relevant and necessary for its proceedings and which a party contends to be in the nature of a trade secret or confidential research, development, or commercial information. In re Application of Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 223 Neb. 415, 390 N.W.2d 495 (1986).
Some factors to be considered in determining whether given information is one's trade secret are (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of his business, (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in his business, (3) the extent of measures taken by him to guard the secrecy of the information, (4) the value of the information to him and his competitors, (5) the amount of effort or money expended by him in developing the information, and (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. In re Application of Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 223 Neb. 415, 390 N.W.2d 495 (1986).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-509 - Rule 509. Secrets of state and other official information; general rule of privilege; who may claim privilege; procedure; effect of sustaining claim.

27-509.
Rule 509. Secrets of state and other official information; general rule of privilege; who may claim privilege; procedure; effect of sustaining claim.
(1) The government has a privilege to refuse to give evidence and to prevent any public officer from giving evidence as to communications made by or to such public officer in official confidence when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.
(2) The privilege may be claimed by the public officer sought to be examined, or by the chief officer of the department of government administering the subject matter which the evidence concerned. The required showing may be made in whole or in part in the form of a written statement. The judge may hear the matter in chambers, but all counsel are entitled to inspect the claim and showing and be heard thereon. The judge may take any protective measure which the interest of the government and the furtherance of justice may require.
(3) If the circumstances of the case indicate a substantial possibility that a claim of privilege would be appropriate but has not been made because of oversight or lack of knowledge, the judge shall give or cause notice to be given to the officer entitled to claim the privilege and shall stay further proceedings a reasonable time to afford opportunity to assert a claim of privilege.
(4) If a claim of privilege is sustained in a proceeding to which the government is a party and it appears that another party is thereby deprived of material evidence, the judge shall make any further orders which the interests of justice require, including striking the testimony of a witness, declaring a mistrial, finding against the government upon an issue as to which the evidence is relevant, or dismissing the action.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 29.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-511 - Rule 511. Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure.

27-511.
Rule 511. Waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure.
A person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure of a confidential matter or communication waives the privilege if he or his predecessor, while holder of the privilege, voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the matter or communication. This rule does not apply if the disclosure is itself a privileged communication.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 31.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-512 - Rule 512. Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege.

27-512.
Rule 512. Privileged matter disclosed under compulsion or without opportunity to claim privilege.
Evidence of a statement or other disclosure of privileged matter is not admissible against the holder of the privilege if the disclosure was (1) compelled erroneously or (2) made without opportunity to claim the privilege.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 32.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-513 - Rule 513. Comment on or inference from claim of privilege improper; jury instruction.

27-513.
Rule 513. Comment on or inference from claim of privilege improper; jury instruction.
(1) The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceeding or upon a prior occasion, is not a proper subject of comment by judge or counsel. No inference may be drawn therefrom.
(2) In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the making of claims of privilege without the knowledge of the jury.
(3) Upon request, any party against whom the jury might draw an adverse inference from a claim of privilege is entitled to an instruction that no inference may be drawn therefrom.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 33.
Annotations
A person cannot prove he or she suffered ineffective assistance of counsel by his or her counsel's failure to call a witness who would have most likely invoked Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination, because the trial court would have barred the witness from testifying to avoid the witness from claiming privilege in the presence of the jury. State v. Britt, 310 Neb. 69, 963 N.W.2d 533 (2021).
A trial court may bar the testimony of a defendant's accomplice who seeks to exculpate the defendant by testifying as to events that are crucial regarding the defendant's culpability, but intends to invoke his or her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during cross-examination. State v. Clausen, 307 Neb. 968, 951 N.W.2d 764 (2020).
Although a witness invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in the jury's presence, no error was plainly evident from the record where the bill of exceptions did not contain evidence showing that the parties or the court knew the witness would invoke his privilege and where, after being given immunity, the witness testified and was subject to cross-examination. State v. Munoz, 303 Neb. 69, 927 N.W.2d 25 (2019).
A hearing to determine whether a privilege is claimed is not absolutely required to comply with the requirements of this section, but if held, it is straightforward in that it must provide the witness the opportunity to testify or invoke a privilege. The State may then offer immunity in exchange for the witness’s testimony. Finally, the trial court must decide whether the witness intends to testify and if it would be prejudicial to either the defendant or the State to call or not to call the witness. State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777, 857 N.W.2d 334 (2015).
Pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, although the trial judge's comments were certainly unnecessary and ill advised, they did not permit the jury to draw an unfavorable inference from the defendant's failure to testify and adduce evidence. State v. Nissen, 252 Neb. 51, 560 N.W.2d 157 (1997).
A prosecutor's reference to the defendant's failure to make an exculpatory statement before the defendant is in custody does not violate the defendant's right to remain silent. State v. Gregory, 220 Neb. 778, 371 N.W.2d 754 (1985).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-601 - Rule 601. General rule of competency.

27-601.
Rule 601. General rule of competency.
Every person is competent to be a witness except as otherwise provided in these rules.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 34.
Annotations
The question of the competency of a child witness rests largely within the discretion of the trial court, and that determination will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Guy, 227 Neb. 610, 419 N.W.2d 152 (1988).
No abuse of discretion to allow 5-year-old's testimony when conflicting testimony was caused by nature of defense counsel's questions, which created question of credibility and not competency. State v. Miner, 216 Neb. 309, 343 N.W.2d 899 (1984).
Except as specifically provided otherwise by the rules of evidence, every person is competent to be a witness about those things of which he has personal knowledge. Tuch v. Tuch, 210 Neb. 601, 316 N.W.2d 304 (1982).
Where injured victim of defendant's assault with a gun was defendant's wife, she was competent to testify where the jury had prior knowledge of her condition. State v. Martin, 198 Neb. 811, 255 N.W.2d 844 (1977).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-602 - Rule 602. Lack of personal knowledge; witness may not testify; evidence.

27-602.
Rule 602. Lack of personal knowledge; witness may not testify; evidence.
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony of the witness himself. This rule is subject to the provisions of section 27-703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 35.
Annotations
Under this section and sections 27-701 and 27-702, it is improper for a witness to testify whether another person may or may not have been telling the truth in a specific instance. State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (2017).
Under this section, lay witnesses may testify only as to factual matters based upon their personal knowledge. State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (2017).
A party's "assumption" of a fact confesses the absence of personal knowledge of the fact. Sulu v. Magana, 293 Neb. 148, 879 N.W.2d 674 (2016).
Inadequate foundation for personal knowledge was cured on cross-examination when opposing counsel questioned witness regarding matter for own purposes beyond explaining or rebutting the original evidence. State v. Rieger, 260 Neb. 519, 618 N.W.2d 619 (2000).
It was not necessary for a police officer to remember the name of a person to whom he administered a photographic array in order to have personal knowledge of that person's photographic identification. State v. Rieger, 260 Neb. 519, 618 N.W.2d 619 (2000).
In establishing foundation for test results, a witness may not testify as to whether laboratory protocols were followed unless the witness has personal knowledge of the matter, i.e., the witness performed the test or witnessed the test being performed. State v. Jackson, 255 Neb. 68, 582 N.W.2d 317 (1998).
A witness testifying to objective facts must have had means of knowing the facts from the witness' personal knowledge. State v. Kirksey, 254 Neb. 162, 575 N.W.2d 377 (1998).
A witness may not testify about the custody procedures used by a police department unless evidence is introduced to show that he or she has personal knowledge of the matter. State v. Smith, 238 Neb. 111, 469 N.W.2d 146 (1991).
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter. The record supported a conclusion that the deponent did not possess or could not articulate personal knowledge. State v. Irish, 223 Neb. 578, 391 N.W.2d 137 (1986).
Testimony concerning observations of conduct, behavior in terms of false perceptions, or mistaken ideas, is controlled by the personal knowledge provision of this section. State v. Norfolk, 221 Neb. 810, 381 N.W.2d 120 (1986).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-603 - Rule 603. Oath or affirmation.

27-603.
Rule 603. Oath or affirmation.
Before testifying, every witness shall be required to declare that he will testify truthfully, by oath or affirmation administered in a form calculated to awaken his conscience and impress his mind with his duty to do so.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 36.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-604 - Rule 604. Interpreters.

27-604.
Rule 604. Interpreters.
An interpreter is subject to the provisions of these rules relating to qualification as an expert and the administration of an oath or affirmation that he will make a true translation.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 37.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-607 - Rule 607. Who may impeach.

27-607.
Rule 607. Who may impeach.
The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling him.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 40.
Annotations
Under this section, the credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness. A party may not, however, use the rule as an artifice for putting before the jury substantive evidence that is otherwise inadmissible. But evidence of a witness' bias, however, is substantive evidence that a party can present on direct or cross-examination. State v. Iromuanya, 282 Neb. 798, 806 N.W.2d 404 (2011).
Although under this section "(t)he credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling him (or her)," a party may not use a prior inconsistent statement of a witness under the guise of impeachment for the primary purpose of placing before the jury substantive evidence which is not otherwise admissible. State v. Boppre, 243 Neb. 908, 503 N.W.2d 526 (1993).
A party does not vouch for the credibility of its witness. State v. Joy, 220 Neb. 535, 371 N.W.2d 113 (1985).
The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party who called the witness. State v. Marco, 220 Neb. 96, 368 N.W.2d 470 (1985).
The rule allowing a party to impeach his own witness may not be used as an artifice by which inadmissible matter may be gotten to the jury through the device of offering a witness whose testimony is or should be known to be adverse in order, under the name of impeachment, to get before the jury for its consideration a favorable ex parte statement the witness had made. State v. Brehmer, 211 Neb. 29, 317 N.W.2d 885 (1982).
Where the need for impeachment is small or nonexistent and the danger that the prior inconsistent statement will be considered substantively is great, the statement should be excluded. State v. Price, 202 Neb. 308, 275 N.W.2d 82 (1979).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-610 - Rule 610. Religious beliefs or opinions.

27-610.
Rule 610. Religious beliefs or opinions.
Evidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion is not admissible for the purpose of showing that by reason of their nature his credibility is impaired or enhanced.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 43.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-612 - Rule 612. Writing used to refresh memory; rights of adverse party; matters unrelated; preservation for appeal; orders.

27-612.
Rule 612. Writing used to refresh memory; rights of adverse party; matters unrelated; preservation for appeal; orders.
If a witness uses a writing to refresh his memory for the purpose of testifying, either before or while testifying, an adverse party is entitled to have it produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony, the judge shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the judge shall make any order justice requires.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 45.
Annotations
A party seeking access to a document used to refresh a witness' recollection bears the burden of establishing that the document sought was actually used by the witness to refresh recollection. State v. Schroder, 232 Neb. 65, 439 N.W.2d 489 (1989).
A precondition to the production and use by an adverse party of a witness' prior written statement is that the statement has been used by the witness to refresh his recollection. Rawlings v. Andersen, 195 Neb. 686, 240 N.W.2d 568 (1976).
This section requires production of not only documents used to refresh recollection in the courtroom while the witness is testifying, but also those writings the witness reviewed prior to giving testimony. State v. McMillion, 23 Neb. App. 687, 875 N.W.2d 877 (2016).
The purpose of the phrase "for the purpose of testifying" is to safeguard against wholesale exploration of an opposing party's files and to ensure that access is limited only to those writings which may fairly be said in fact to have an impact upon the testimony of the witness. State v. Jones, 6 Neb. App. 647, 577 N.W.2d 302 (1998).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-614 - Rule 614. Calling and interrogation of witnesses by judge; objections.

27-614.
Rule 614. Calling and interrogation of witnesses by judge; objections.
(1) The judge may, on his own motion or at the suggestion of a party, call witnesses, and all parties are entitled to cross-examine witnesses thus called.
(2) The judge may interrogate witnesses, whether called by himself or by a party.
(3) Objections to the calling of witnesses by the judge or to interrogation by him may be made at the time or at the next available opportunity when the jury is not present.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 47.
Annotations
A party’s right to cross-examine witnesses under subsection (1) of this section was not violated where there was no request by either party to question either witness or present additional evidence and the court gave no indication that such a request would be denied. Torres v. Morales, 287 Neb. 587, 843 N.W.2d 805 (2014).
Subsection (2) of this section provides that the trial judge may interrogate witnesses, whether called by the judge or by a party; however, the trial judge should use this right sparingly. State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432, 604 N.W.2d 169 (2000).
Under the provisions of this section, the trial judge may interrogate witnesses, whether called by himself or by a party; objections to questions propounded by the court must be made at the time of trial. State v. Fix, 219 Neb. 674, 365 N.W.2d 471 (1985).
The right of a judge to interrogate a witness should be very sparingly exercised because, generally, counsel for the parties should be relied on and allowed to manage and bring out their own case, and at no time should the actions of the judge in this respect be such as to warrant any assertion that they were with a view to assistance of the one or the other party to the cause. State v. Brehmer, 211 Neb. 29, 317 N.W.2d 885 (1982).
Trial court did not err in failing to allow party to cross-examine witness following interrogation by judge where that party made no objection to record as made, and that party made no request to further interrogate witness. Baltes v. Hodges, 207 Neb. 740, 301 N.W.2d 92 (1981).
A trial court may, on its own motion, call witnesses and interrogate witnesses pursuant to this section. Scudder v. Haug, 201 Neb. 107, 266 N.W.2d 232 (1978).
Trial court erred in failing to allow party to cross-examine witness following interrogation by judge where counsel's request to examine or cross-examine any witnesses was denied. Hronek v. Brosnan, 20 Neb. App. 200, 823 N.W.2d 204 (2012).
Pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, a trial court must act impartially and not prejudicially in exercising the discretionary power given to judges under this section to call and to interrogate witnesses. Gernstein v. Allen, 10 Neb. App. 214, 630 N.W.2d 672 (2001).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-615 - Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses; exceptions.

27-615.
Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses; exceptions.
At the request of a party the judge shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and he may make the order on his own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 48.
Annotations
It is permissible for a law enforcement officer, who will also be called to testify, to be present during a trial, even where a sequestration order has been entered. State v. Freeman, 267 Neb. 737, 677 N.W.2d 164 (2004).
In an attorney disciplinary proceeding, the attorney's client who was also the complaining witness in the proceeding was an essential witness under subsection (3) of this section. State ex rel. NSBA v. Miller, 258 Neb. 181, 602 N.W.2d 486 (1999).
Sequestration order not violated by presence of State's psychiatrist who was not to be called as a witness at trial. State v. Ryan, 233 Neb. 74, 444 N.W.2d 610 (1989).
A psychiatrist or psychologist may be present in the courtroom in contravention of a sequestration order upon a showing that his or her presence is essential to the presentation of a party's case. State v. Jackson, 231 Neb. 207, 435 N.W.2d 893 (1989).
Defendant's request to sequester a witness who was the prosecutrix and victim, held properly denied under exception in subsection (3) hereof. State v. Eynon, 197 Neb. 734, 250 N.W.2d 658 (1977).
The general rule is that witnesses shall be excluded from a proceeding at the request of a party; this rule has certain exceptions, including a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of its cause. In re Interest of Dennis W., 14 Neb. App. 827, 717 N.W.2d 488 (2006).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-704 - Rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue.

27-704.
Rule 704. Opinion on ultimate issue.
Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 52.
Annotations
This section abolished the "ultimate issue" rule in Nebraska. Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019).
Under this section, a witness may not give an opinion as to how the case should be decided, but, rather, must leave the conclusions to be drawn by the trier of fact, because such opinions are not helpful. Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019).
Under this section, the basic approach to opinions, lay and expert, is to admit them when helpful to the trier of fact. Reiber v. County of Gage, 303 Neb. 325, 928 N.W.2d 916 (2019).
The "ultimate issue rule," which prohibited witnesses from giving opinions or conclusions on an ultimate fact in issue because such testimony, it was believed, usurps the function or invades the province of the jury, was abolished in Nebraska by this section. State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (2017).
Under this section, the basic approach to opinions, lay and expert, is to admit them when helpful to the trier of fact. State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716, 890 N.W.2d 178 (2017).
An otherwise admissible expert's opinion is not objectionable because the opinion embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. State v. Reynolds, 235 Neb. 662, 457 N.W.2d 405 (1990); State v. Rotella, 196 Neb. 741, 246 N.W.2d 74 (1976).
This section must be read in conjunction with sections 27-702, and 27-401 to 27-403, for this section does not render all expert testimony admissible. Under this section, the test is not whether the expert's opinion or inference invades the province of the jury, but whether the opinion or inference is otherwise admissible and will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue under section 27-702. State v. Reynolds, 235 Neb. 662, 457 N.W.2d 405 (1990).
Auto manufacturer's expert witness entitled to present illustrative experiment and to testify regarding an ultimate issue of fact. Shover v. General Motors Corp., 198 Neb. 470, 253 N.W.2d 299 (1977).
Possible modification of rule relating to opinion of investigator as to point of impact discussed but not applied retrospectively. Rawlings v. Andersen, 195 Neb. 686, 240 N.W.2d 568 (1976).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-706 - Rule 706. Judge appointed experts; procedure; compensation; disclosure of appointment; parties may call experts of own selection.

27-706.
Rule 706. Judge appointed experts; procedure; compensation; disclosure of appointment; parties may call experts of own selection.
(1) The judge may on his own motion or on the motion of any party enter an order to show why expert witnesses should not be appointed, and may request the parties to submit nominations. The judge may appoint any expert witnesses agreed upon by the parties, and may appoint witnesses of his own selection. An expert witness shall not be appointed by the judge unless he consents to act. A witness so appointed shall be informed of his duties by the judge in writing, a copy of which shall be filed with the clerk, or at a conference in which the parties shall have opportunity to participate. A witness so appointed shall advise the parties of his findings, if any; his deposition may be taken by any party; and he may be called to testify by the judge or any party. He shall be subject to cross-examination by each party, including a party calling him as a witness.
(2) Expert witnesses so appointed are entitled to reasonable compensation in whatever sum the judge may allow. The compensation thus fixed is payable from funds which may be provided by law in criminal cases and by the opposing parties in equal portions to the clerk of the court in civil cases at a time fixed by the court and thereafter charged in like manner as other costs.
(3) In the exercise of his discretion, the judge may authorize disclosure to the jury of the fact that the court appointed the expert witness.
(4) Nothing in this rule limits the parties in calling expert witnesses of their own selection.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 54.
Annotations
If proposed expert testimony is fundamentally flawed by the expert's own admission, it is not an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to appoint the expert under this section when there is no showing that this shortcoming in the expert's proposed testimony has been remedied. State v. Quezada, 20 Neb. App. 836, 834 N.W.2d 258 (2013).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-707 - Eyewitness identification and memory; expert witness; admissibility of testimony.

27-707.
Eyewitness identification and memory; expert witness; admissibility of testimony.
The testimony of an expert witness regarding eyewitness identification and memory may be admitted in any criminal or civil proceeding pursuant to the rules governing admissibility of evidence set forth in the Nebraska Evidence Rules.
Source
Laws 2020, LB881, § 4.
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-802 - Rule 802. Hearsay rule.

27-802.
Rule 802. Hearsay rule.
Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules, by other rules adopted by the statutes of the State of Nebraska, or by the discovery rules of the Supreme Court.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 56;
Laws 2000, LB 921, § 29.
Annotations
The Nebraska Evidence Rules provide that hearsay is admissible when authorized by the statutes of the State of Nebraska. In re Application No. OP-0003, 303 Neb. 872, 932 N.W.2d 653 (2019).
The language of section 25-1273.01, in combination with this section, indicates a clear intention by the Legislature to create an independent avenue to admit deposition testimony. Walton v. Patil, 279 Neb. 974, 783 N.W.2d 438 (2010).
A trial judge does not have discretion to admit inadmissible hearsay statements. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008).
Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court's hearsay ruling and reviews de novo the court's ultimate determination to admit evidence over a hearsay objection. State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448, 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008).
With certain exceptions, hearsay evidence is not admissible. In re Interest of Constance G., 254 Neb. 96, 575 N.W.2d 133 (1998).
Medical reports produced out of court are hearsay. Vacanti v. Master Electronics Corp., 245 Neb. 586, 514 N.W.2d 319 (1994).
An insurer's estimate of the cost of repairing damage to a vehicle, without further testimony by the insurer or the repair person, is inadmissible hearsay testimony. State v. Larkin, 222 Neb. 398, 383 N.W.2d 804 (1986).
Facts of the case held to be sufficient to place young child's statement as within the hearsay exceptions. State v. Roy, 214 Neb. 204, 333 N.W.2d 398 (1983).
Hearsay evidence is not admissible except as otherwise provided by the statutes of the state. State v. Williams, 203 Neb. 649, 279 N.W.2d 847 (1979).
2023 Nebraska Revised Statutes › Chapter 27 - Courts; Rules of Evidence › 27-805 - Rule 805. Hearsay within hearsay.

27-805.
Rule 805. Hearsay within hearsay.
Hearsay included within hearsay is not excluded under the hearsay rule if each part of the combined statements conforms with an exception to the hearsay rule provided in these rules.
Source
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 59.
Annotations
Police complaint report admitted into evidence was not hearsay within hearsay because each part of the combined statements conformed with an exception to the hearsay rule. State v. Wilson, 225 Neb. 466, 406 N.W.2d 123 (1987).
A child sexual assault victim's statements, as relayed to a doctor by a forensic examiner and testified to by a doctor, were admissible even though they were double hearsay because each part of the combined statements conformed with an exception to the hearsay rule. State v. Edwards, 28 Neb. App. 893, 949 N.W.2d 799 (2020).