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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (2026)

Rule 403. Exclusion of relevant evidence; reasons

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

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 406 cases (74 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Stubbendieck, 302 Neb. 702 (Neb. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Stubbendieck, 302 Neb. 702 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 13× “While Stubbendieck does not explicitly point to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016), he does claim that Elieff's testimony was "highly prejudicial," 7 and further indicates that he fears the testimony resulted in a "danger of unfair prejudice," 8 which leads us to review…”
State v. Oldson, 884 N.W.2d 10 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 8× “403, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2008), includ- ing other acts evidence.”
State v. Rocha, 890 N.W.2d 178 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 6× “403, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016), even evidence that is relevant is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by con- siderations of undue delay, waste of…”
State v. Grant, 876 N.W.2d 639 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 6× “- 165 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v.”
State v. Boswell, 316 Neb. 542 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 22× “The fact that evidence is prejudicial is not enough to require exclusion under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016), because most, if not all, of the evidence a party offers is calculated to be prejudicial to the opposing party; it is only the evidence which has a tendency to…”
State v. Lierman, 305 Neb. 289 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 8× “’s credibility by pointing out inconsistencies and failed memory, but as the State noted, those inconsistencies are typi- cal of a young adult remembering traumatic events that took place years ago.”
State v. Thomas, 303 Neb. 964 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 6× “403, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016), if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
State v. Carter, 524 N.W.2d 763 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 20× “, an acquaintance, on the basis that it violated Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 27-403 and 27-404 (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Faust, 660 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 12× “PRINCIPLES OF LAW The ability of the State and the accused to present evidence of a character trait and the manner in which that evidence may be presented is addressed by Neb. Rev.Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 1995) and §§ 27-404 and 27-405.”
State v. Hernandez, 299 Neb. 896 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 4× “403, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016), unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest a decision based on an improper basis.”
State v. Valverde, 835 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 2013). · cites it 9× “Valverde’s counsel argued that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2008), the probative value of the evidence of the prior sexual assault did not outweigh the danger of prejudice.”
State v. Chauncey, 890 N.W.2d 453 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 4× “403, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016), relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
Show all 406 citing cases →
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.