Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 27
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103 (2026)

Rule 103. Rulings on evidence; effect of erroneous ruling; objection; offer of proof; record of offer and ruling; hearing of jury; plain error

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and:

(a) In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if a specific ground was not apparent from the context; or

(b) In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the judge by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.

(2) The judge may add any other or further statement which shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. He may direct the making of an offer in question and answer form.

(3) In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury.

(4) Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the judge.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 154 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Lenz, 419 N.W.2d 670 (Neb. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Lenz, 419 N.W.2d 670 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 10× “§ 27-404(2) (Reissue 1985), to show that Lenz had the intent to perform violent acts during the robbery.”
State v. Faust, 660 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 4× “] Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-103 (Reissue 1995). From this rule, we derive a basic tenet of appellate review that a prerequisite to an appeal based upon error in the admission of evidence is a timely objection stating the grounds therefor, unless the grounds are apparent from the…”
State v. Kidder, 908 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “103, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103 (1) (Reissue 2016), "[e]rror may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected[.”
State v. Schreiner, 754 N.W.2d 742 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 3× “[22] See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103 (1)(b) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Rodriguez, 726 N.W.2d 157 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103 (l)(b) (Reissue 1995) provides: (1) Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and: (b) In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was…”
State v. Childs, 960 N.W.2d 585 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 3× “United States, 568 U.S. 266 , 135 S. Ct. 1780 , 191 L. Ed.”
State v. King, 7 N.W.3d 884 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 3× “[2-4] Interpreting § 27-103(1)(b), we have said that in order to predicate error upon a ruling of the court refusing to permit a witness to testify, or to answer a specific question, the record must show an offer to prove the facts sought to be elicited. See State v.”
State v. Anthony, 4 N.W.3d 393 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 3× “ANTHONY the defendant’s attorney sought to impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, but the trial court sustained an objection raised by the State.”
State v. Van, 688 N.W.2d 600 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 2× “Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected and the substance of the evidence was made known to the judge by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked.”
Sturzenegger v. Father Flanagan's Boys'home, 754 N.W.2d 406 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 2× “[13] See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103 (1)(b) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Barnes, 10 N.W.3d 716 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 2× “” As these definitions highlight, demonstrative exhibits are defined by the purpose for which they are offered at trial—to aid or assist the jury in understanding the evidence or issues in a case.”
Mathews v. Mathews, 676 N.W.2d 42 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 2× “Instead, Mark objected to the evaluations on the sole ground that they were incomplete, i.e., they did not contain all of the information he had requested through discovery.”
Show all 154 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103(1): 7 cases
State v. Lenz, 419 N.W.2d 670 (Neb. 1988). “§ 27-404(2) (Reissue 1985), to show that Lenz had the intent to perform violent acts during the robbery.”
State v. Robertson, 366 N.W.2d 429 (Neb. 1985).
First Nat'l Bank & Trust v. Otoe Cnty., 445 N.W.2d 880 (Neb. 1989).
In re Interest of Jh, 445 N.W.2d 599 (Neb. 1989).
State v. Kistenmacher, 436 N.W.2d 168 (Neb. 1989).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103(1)(a): 2 cases
State v. Cave, 484 N.W.2d 458 (Neb. 1992).
State v. Kirksey, 575 N.W.2d 377 (Neb. 1998).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103(1)(b): 8 cases
State v. Schreiner, 754 N.W.2d 742 (Neb. 2008). “[22] See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103 (1)(b) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. King, 7 N.W.3d 884 (Neb. 2024). “[2-4] Interpreting § 27-103(1)(b), we have said that in order to predicate error upon a ruling of the court refusing to permit a witness to testify, or to answer a specific question, the record must show an offer to prove the facts sought to be elicited. See State v.”
State v. Tammie S., 705 N.W.2d 792 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Williams, 365 N.W.2d 414 (Neb. 1985).
State v. Fonville, 248 N.W.2d 27 (Neb. 1976).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103(4): 1 case
State v. Childs, 960 N.W.2d 585 (Neb. 2021). “United States, 568 U.S. 266 , 135 S. Ct. 1780 , 191 L. Ed.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103(l)(a): 1 case
State v. Mowell, 672 N.W.2d 389 (Neb. 2003).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103(l)(b): 2 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 726 N.W.2d 157 (Neb. 2007). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103 (l)(b) (Reissue 1995) provides: (1) Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and: (b) In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was…”
Zuco v. Tucker, 609 N.W.2d 59 (Neb. Ct. App. 2000).
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.