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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104 (2026)

Rule 104. Preliminary questions; questions of admissibility, generally; relevancy conditioned on fact; hearing of jury; testimony by accused; weight and credibility

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

(1) Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the judge, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) When the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the judge shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition.

(3) Hearings on the admissibility of confessions shall in all cases be conducted out of the hearing of the jury. Hearings on other preliminary matters shall be so conducted when the interests of justice require, or when an accused is a witness, if he so requests.

(4) The accused does not, by testifying upon a preliminary matter, subject himself to cross-examination as to other issues in the case.

(5) This rule does not limit the right of a party to introduce before the jury evidence relevant to weight or credibility.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: State v. Oldson, 884 N.W.2d 10 (Neb. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Oldson, 884 N.W.2d 10 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 2× “718 It was the province of the jury to determine if the excerpt referred to Beard.”
Hemsley v. Langdon, 299 Neb. 464 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “25 In making the preliminary assessment, the trial judge has the discretion both to avoid unnecessary Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104 (Reissue 2016) hearings, where the reliability of an expert's methods is stipulated to or properly taken for granted, and to require appropriate…”
Reavis v. Solminski, 551 N.W.2d 528 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 8× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104 (2) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Jackson, 648 N.W.2d 282 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 4× “Jackson alleges that, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-104 and 27-602 (Reissue 1995), Fulton did not possess the foundational personal knowledge necessary to testify regarding the names of “Shalamar” and “Dante.”
State v. Jacob, 494 N.W.2d 109 (Neb. 1993). · cites it 6× “As expressed in § 27-803(22) and § 27-804(2)(e), “these rules” of evidence, that is, the Nebraska Evidence Rules, as contained in chapter 27 of our statutes, also include Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-104 ,27-602, and 27-701 (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Savage, 301 Neb. 873 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “20 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104 (1) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Green, 470 N.W.2d 736 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 5× “Green contends that the trial court committed reversible error by not immediately conducting a hearing outside the presence of the jury pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104 (3) (Reissue 1989) to determine the admissibility of the evidence.”
Schafersman v. Agland Coop., 631 N.W.2d 862 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 2× “This entails a preliminary assessment whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is valid and whether that reasoning or methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue.”
State v. Draganescu, 755 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 2× “[39] Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-104(1) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Martinez, 886 N.W.2d 256 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 2× “Martinez then argues that lay testimony is “inappropriate, irrel- evant, confusing, and ultimately inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-104 , 401, 403, 602 and 701.”
State v. Aguilar, 683 N.W.2d 349 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104 (Reissue 1995) provides: (1) Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the judge, subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of…”
State v. Edwards, 767 N.W.2d 784 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 2× “104(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104 (2) (Reissue 2008).”
Show all 59 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104(1) — 5 cases
State v. Draganescu, 755 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 2008). “[39] Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-104(1) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Jackson, 648 N.W.2d 282 (Neb. 2002). “Jackson alleges that, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-104 and 27-602 (Reissue 1995), Fulton did not possess the foundational personal knowledge necessary to testify regarding the names of “Shalamar” and “Dante.”
Priest v. McConnell, 363 N.W.2d 173 (Neb. 1985).
In Re Interest of Louis S., 774 N.W.2d 416 (Neb. Ct. App. 2009).
Skiles v. Sec. State Bank, 494 N.W.2d 355 (Neb. Ct. App. 1992).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104(2) — 1 case
Reavis v. Solminski, 551 N.W.2d 528 (Neb. 1996). “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104 (2) (Reissue 1995).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104(3) — 1 case
State v. Green, 470 N.W.2d 736 (Neb. 1991). “Green contends that the trial court committed reversible error by not immediately conducting a hearing outside the presence of the jury pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-104 (3) (Reissue 1989) to determine the admissibility of the evidence.”
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.