(1) Evidence of a person's character or a trait of his or her character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he or she acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Evidence of a pertinent trait of his or her character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the same;
(b) Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused or by the prosecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor. In a sexual assault case, reputation, opinion, or other evidence of past sexual behavior of the victim is governed by section 27-412; or
(c) Evidence of the character of a witness as provided in sections 27-607 to 27-609.
(2) Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
(3) When such evidence is admissible pursuant to this section, in criminal cases evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of the accused may be offered in evidence by the prosecution if the prosecution proves to the court by clear and convincing evidence that the accused committed the crime, wrong, or act. Such proof shall first be made outside the presence of any jury.
(4) Regarding the admissibility in a civil or criminal action of evidence of a person's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault under sections 28-316.01 and 28-319 to 28-322.07, see sections 27-413 to 27-415.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
319
cases (
61 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
State v. Faust, 660 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2003).
State v. Faust, 660 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 56× “We determine that under Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 27-404 and 27-405 (Reissue 1995), the State is prohibited from introducing evidence of specific instances of a defendant's prior bad acts to rebut testimony of the defendant's character witnesses.”
State v. Harris, 640 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 36× “ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Harris assigns that the district court erred in (1) failing to allow Harris a voluntariness hearing; (2) refusing to grant Harris a mistrial based upon the State's failure to provide Harris' statement pursuant to court-ordered discovery; (3) allowing…”
State v. Oldson, 884 N.W.2d 10 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 14× “404(1), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (1) (Cum. Supp. 2014), proof of a person’s character is barred only when in turn, character is used in order to show action in conformity therewith.”
State v. Rush, 317 Neb. 622 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 23× “A hearing pur- suant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (Cum. Supp. 2022) precedes the main discourse of a criminal case.”
State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 17× “404(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (2) (Reissue 2016), is not exhaustive.”
State v. Boswell, 316 Neb. 542 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 29× “An appellate court’s analysis under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (2) (Reissue 2016) gener- ally considers (1) whether the evidence was relevant for some purpose other than to prove the character of a person to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith; (2) whether the…”
State v. Valverde, 835 N.W.2d 732 (Neb. 2013).
· cites it 17× “Kibbee,6 we analyzed similar evidence solely as evidence of “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (Cum. Supp. 2012).”
State v. Ely, 889 N.W.2d 377 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 6× “607 (e) failed to argue that evidence was ruled admissible pursu- ant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (Reissue 2016) in a codefend ant’s first trial but inadmissible in Ely’s trial, (f) failed to argue that Palma’s testimony did not fulfill what the State said it would, (g) failed…”
State v. Parnell, 883 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 6× “404(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (2) (Cum. Supp. 2014), does not apply to evidence of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts if the evidence is inextricably intertwined with the charged crime.”
State v. Ellis, 303 N.W.2d 741 (Neb. 1981).
· cites it 25× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (2) (Reissue 1979).”
State v. Thomas, 303 Neb. 964 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 6× “404, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (Reissue 2016). The jury found Thomas guilty on both counts.”
State v. Lierman, 305 Neb. 289 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 7× “2 (b) Background Prior to trial, the State filed a motion for a hearing to deter- mine the admissibility of prior sexual assault evidence and an intent to offer additional evidence pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-404 and 27-414 (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(1) — 13 cases
State v. Faust, 660 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2003).
“We determine that under Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 27-404 and 27-405 (Reissue 1995), the State is prohibited from introducing evidence of specific instances of a defendant's prior bad acts to rebut testimony of the defendant's character witnesses.”
State v. Rush, 317 Neb. 622 (Neb. 2024).
“A hearing pur- suant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (Cum. Supp. 2022) precedes the main discourse of a criminal case.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Faust, 660 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2003).
“We determine that under Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 27-404 and 27-405 (Reissue 1995), the State is prohibited from introducing evidence of specific instances of a defendant's prior bad acts to rebut testimony of the defendant's character witnesses.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(1)(b) — 4 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(1)(c) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(2) — 118 cases
State v. Harris, 640 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2002).
“ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Harris assigns that the district court erred in (1) failing to allow Harris a voluntariness hearing; (2) refusing to grant Harris a mistrial based upon the State's failure to provide Harris' statement pursuant to court-ordered discovery; (3) allowing…”
State v. Faust, 660 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2003).
“We determine that under Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 27-404 and 27-405 (Reissue 1995), the State is prohibited from introducing evidence of specific instances of a defendant's prior bad acts to rebut testimony of the defendant's character witnesses.”
State v. Ellis, 303 N.W.2d 741 (Neb. 1981).
“” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (2) (Reissue 1979).”
State v. Boswell, 316 Neb. 542 (Neb. 2024).
“An appellate court’s analysis under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (2) (Reissue 2016) gener- ally considers (1) whether the evidence was relevant for some purpose other than to prove the character of a person to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith; (2) whether the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(3) — 23 cases
State v. Rush, 317 Neb. 622 (Neb. 2024).
“A hearing pur- suant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (Cum. Supp. 2022) precedes the main discourse of a criminal case.”
State v. Faust, 660 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2003).
“We determine that under Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 27-404 and 27-405 (Reissue 1995), the State is prohibited from introducing evidence of specific instances of a defendant's prior bad acts to rebut testimony of the defendant's character witnesses.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Faust, 660 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2003).
“We determine that under Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 27-404 and 27-405 (Reissue 1995), the State is prohibited from introducing evidence of specific instances of a defendant's prior bad acts to rebut testimony of the defendant's character witnesses.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(l)(b) — 1 case
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.