(1) The following evidence is not admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section:
(a) Evidence offered to prove that any victim engaged in other sexual behavior or has been the victim of any other sexual assault; and
(b) Evidence offered to prove any victim's sexual predisposition.
(2)(a) In a criminal case, the following evidence is admissible, if otherwise admissible under the Nebraska Evidence Rules:
(i) Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the victim offered to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence;
(ii) Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior of the victim with respect to the accused offered by the accused to prove consent of the victim if it is first established to the court that such behavior is similar to the behavior involved in the case and tends to establish a pattern of behavior of the victim relevant to the issue of consent; and
(iii) Evidence, the exclusion of which would violate the constitutional rights of the accused.
(b) In a civil case, evidence offered to prove the sexual behavior or sexual predisposition of any victim is admissible if it is otherwise admissible under the Nebraska Evidence Rules and its probative value substantially outweighs the danger of harm to any victim and of unfair prejudice to any party. Evidence of a victim's reputation is admissible only if it has been placed in controversy by the victim.
(3)(a) A party intending to offer evidence under subsection (2) of this section shall:
(i) File a written motion at least fifteen days before trial specifically describing the evidence and stating the purpose for which it is offered unless the court, for good cause, requires a different time for filing or permits filing during trial; and
(ii) Serve the motion on all parties and notify the victim or, when appropriate, the victim's guardian or representative.
(b) Before admitting evidence under this section, the court shall conduct a hearing in camera outside the presence of any jury.
(4) Evidence of the victim's consent is not admissible in any civil proceeding involving alleged:
(a) Sexual penetration when the actor is nineteen years of age or older and the victim is less than sixteen years of age; or
(b) Sexual contact when the actor is nineteen years of age or older and the victim is less than fifteen years of age.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case:
State v. Swindle, 915 N.W.2d 795 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Swindle, 915 N.W.2d 795 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 11× “'s credibility and was not precluded by Nebraska's rape shield statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016), and that the district court's ruling violated Swindle's right to confront his accuser.”
State v. Abligo, 978 N.W.2d 42 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 16× “At an evidentiary hearing, the State argued that the videos should be excluded, because Abligo failed to provide the requisite 15-day written notice of his intention to admit § 27-412 evidence, and that the videos were irrelevant, had no probative value, and would be unfairly…”
State v. Lierman, 940 N.W.2d 529 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 4× “The offer of proof also established that there was - 303 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v.”
State v. Dady, 936 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 7× “- 657 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports STATE v.”
State v. Ali, 981 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 19× “One was a DVD recording of an interview by law enforcement conducted of J.”
State v. Prado, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 223 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 11× “When a defendant’s trial counsel is different from his or her counsel on direct appeal, the defendant must raise on direct appeal any issue of trial counsel’s ineffective performance which is known to the defendant or is apparent from the record. Otherwise, the issue will be…”
State v. Lee, 934 N.W.2d 145 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Charges On September 19, 2017, the State of Nebraska charged Talon J. Lee with two counts of sexual assault of a child in the first degree, a Class IB felony; one count of attempted sexual assault of a child in the first degree, a Class II felony; one count of sexual assault of…”
In re Guardianship of Patrick W., 4 N.W.3d 833 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 2× “2022) (providing that evidence described in statute “is admissible, if otherwise admissible under the Nebraska Evidence Rules”); Neb.”
State v. Prado, 967 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 11× “When a defendant’s trial counsel is different from his or her counsel on direct appeal, the defendant must raise on direct appeal any issue of trial counsel’s ineffective performance which is known to the defendant or is apparent from the record. Otherwise, the issue will be…”
State v. Lavalleur, 853 N.W.2d 203 (Neb. 2016).
“’”3 We concluded that the evidence Lavalleur sought to admit was relevant and that its exclusion was not harmless.”
State v. Prior, 973 N.W.2d 726 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “” Although Prior acknowledges the remainder of § 27-404(2) provides that “[i]t may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident,” he argues that the testimony…”
State v. Lavalleur, 853 N.W.2d 2037 (Neb. 2014).
· cites it 16× “The erroneous exclusion of evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Cum. Supp. 2012) is subject to harm- less error review.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(1): 6 cases
State v. Swindle, 915 N.W.2d 795 (Neb. 2018).
“'s credibility and was not precluded by Nebraska's rape shield statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016), and that the district court's ruling violated Swindle's right to confront his accuser.”
State v. Ali, 981 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2022).
“One was a DVD recording of an interview by law enforcement conducted of J.”
State v. Lavalleur, 853 N.W.2d 203 (Neb. 2016).
“’”3 We concluded that the evidence Lavalleur sought to admit was relevant and that its exclusion was not harmless.”
State v. Lavalleur, 853 N.W.2d 2037 (Neb. 2014).
“The erroneous exclusion of evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Cum. Supp. 2012) is subject to harm- less error review.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(1)(a): 1 case
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(2): 1 case
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(2)(a): 3 cases
State v. Ali, 981 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2022).
“One was a DVD recording of an interview by law enforcement conducted of J.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(2)(a)(i): 4 cases
State v. Swindle, 915 N.W.2d 795 (Neb. 2018).
“'s credibility and was not precluded by Nebraska's rape shield statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016), and that the district court's ruling violated Swindle's right to confront his accuser.”
State v. Ali, 981 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2022).
“One was a DVD recording of an interview by law enforcement conducted of J.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(2)(a)(ii): 6 cases
State v. Abligo, 978 N.W.2d 42 (Neb. 2022).
“At an evidentiary hearing, the State argued that the videos should be excluded, because Abligo failed to provide the requisite 15-day written notice of his intention to admit § 27-412 evidence, and that the videos were irrelevant, had no probative value, and would be unfairly…”
State v. Prado, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 223 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
“When a defendant’s trial counsel is different from his or her counsel on direct appeal, the defendant must raise on direct appeal any issue of trial counsel’s ineffective performance which is known to the defendant or is apparent from the record. Otherwise, the issue will be…”
State v. Ali, 981 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2022).
“One was a DVD recording of an interview by law enforcement conducted of J.”
State v. Prado, 967 N.W.2d 696 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
“When a defendant’s trial counsel is different from his or her counsel on direct appeal, the defendant must raise on direct appeal any issue of trial counsel’s ineffective performance which is known to the defendant or is apparent from the record. Otherwise, the issue will be…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(2)(a)(iii): 3 cases
State v. Ali, 981 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2022).
“One was a DVD recording of an interview by law enforcement conducted of J.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(2)(b): 1 case
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(3)(a): 1 case
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(3)(b): 1 case
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(a): 2 cases
State v. Swindle, 915 N.W.2d 795 (Neb. 2018).
“'s credibility and was not precluded by Nebraska's rape shield statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016), and that the district court's ruling violated Swindle's right to confront his accuser.”
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.