Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 25
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1210 (2026)

Witnesses; answer subjecting to criminal liability; disgracing answer; privilege

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When the matter sought to be elicited would tend to render the witness criminally liable or to expose him or her to public ignominy, the witness is not compelled to answer, except as provided in section 27-609.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1959–2020 · leading case: In Re Interest of Clifford M., 577 N.W.2d 547 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Interest of Clifford M., 577 N.W.2d 547 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “Additionally, statutory protection is provided by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1210 (Reissue 1995), which provides that a witness is not compelled to answer "[w]hen the matter sought to be elicited would tend to render the witness criminally liable.”
State v. Ellis, 303 N.W.2d 741 (Neb. 1981). · cites it 4× “This ruling was fully in accord with Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1210 (Reissue 1979) which states in part: "When the matter sought to be elicited would tend to render the witness criminally liable, or to expose him to public ignominy, he is not compelled to answer .”
In re Interest of Vladimir G., 306 Neb. 127 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 2× “I, § 12 (“[n]o person shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to give evidence against himself [or herself]”), and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1210 (Reissue 2016) (“[w]hen the matter sought to be elicited would tend to render the witness criminally liable or to expose him or her to…”
State v. Bittner, 196 N.W.2d 186 (Neb. 1972). · cites it 3× “Objection to the question and witness’ claim to privilege *300 was based upon Article I, section 12, Constitution of Nebraska, and upon section 25-1210, R. R. S. 1943. Both provide that a witness cannot be required to incriminate himself and the cited statute further provides…”
State Ex Rel. Beck v. Lush, 95 N.W.2d 695 (Neb. 1959). · cites it 2× “Each of the defendants herein charged, as well as any other witness in a case of this character, is fully protected by section 25-1210, R. R. S. 1943, from being required to answer if the matter sought to be elicited from him would, in any manner, tend to render him criminally…”
Ritchey v. Ritchey, 302 N.W.2d 372 (Neb. 1981). · cites it 2× “The court commented that any privilege had been waived at that point and the respondent could cross-examine Mary Jane on nearly anything involving her relationship with that man.”
In re Interest of Kelsey B. (Neb. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “However, we do not get to the merits of Daniel’s argument because he never had the opportunity to invoke, or not invoke, his privilege against self-incrimination at the trial court level.”
State ex rel. Cooper v. Harmon, 512 N.W.2d 656 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “He relies upon Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1210 (Reissue 1989), which provides: “When the matter sought to be elicited would tend to render the witness criminally liable, or to expose him to public ignominy, he is not compelled to answer, except as provided in section 25-1214.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.