(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, 300 Neb. 734 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734 (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× “Abligo sought to admit three video recordings, each collected from the social media platform known as Snapchat, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016). Each video was filmed by Abligo and depicted A.”
State v. Lierman, 305 Neb. 289 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 4× “had engaged in some type of sexual misconduct, violating Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016). In addition, the court sustained the State’s objection that Lierman’s cross-examination of B.”
State v. Dady, 304 Neb. 649 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 7× “The alleged trial irregularities related to the court’s change in its ruling on whether Dady could present evidence under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016) of three sexual encounters M.”
State v. Ali, 981 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 19× “§§ 27-402 and 27-403 (Reissue 2016) and that it was inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Cum. Supp. 2020).”
State v. Prado, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 223 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 11× “§ 27-414 (Reissue 2016) evidence, and (4) denying his motion to offer Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016) evidence.”
State v. Lee, 304 Neb. 252 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 2× “412, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016) (Rule 412).”
In re Guardianship of Patrick W., 316 Neb. 381 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 2× “§ 27-402 (Reissue 2016) (providing “[a]ll relevant evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by” federal or state Constitution, federal or state statutes, other rules of evidence, or rules of Nebraska Supreme Court); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (2)(a) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Lavalleur, 292 Neb. 424 (Neb. 2016).
“’”3 We concluded that the evidence Lavalleur sought to admit was relevant and that its exclusion was not harmless.”
State v. Prado, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 223 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 11× “§ 27-414 (Reissue 2016) evidence, and (4) denying his motion to offer Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016) evidence.”
State v. Prior, 973 N.W.2d 726 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “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.”
In re Interest of Angel C. (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 17× “412, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016). Efren’s counsel stated: Judge, this gets to motive as the timeline of events, per the parents, establishes that they took [the victim]’s phone away for her activity on that phone, and I would like to address .”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(1) — 6 cases
State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734 (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).
“§§ 27-402 and 27-403 (Reissue 2016) and that it was inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Cum. Supp. 2020).”
State v. Lavalleur, 292 Neb. 424 (Neb. 2016).
“’”3 We concluded that the evidence Lavalleur sought to admit was relevant and that its exclusion was not harmless.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(1)(a) — 1 case
In re Interest of Angel C. (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
“412, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016). Efren’s counsel stated: Judge, this gets to motive as the timeline of events, per the parents, establishes that they took [the victim]’s phone away for her activity on that phone, and I would like to address .”
— 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).
“§§ 27-402 and 27-403 (Reissue 2016) and that it was inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Cum. Supp. 2020).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(2)(a)(i) — 4 cases
State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734 (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).
“§§ 27-402 and 27-403 (Reissue 2016) and that it was inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Cum. Supp. 2020).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(2)(a)(ii) — 6 cases
State v. Abligo, 978 N.W.2d 42 (Neb. 2022).
“Abligo sought to admit three video recordings, each collected from the social media platform known as Snapchat, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016). Each video was filmed by Abligo and depicted A.”
State v. Prado, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 223 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
“§ 27-414 (Reissue 2016) evidence, and (4) denying his motion to offer Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016) evidence.”
State v. Ali, 981 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2022).
“§§ 27-402 and 27-403 (Reissue 2016) and that it was inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Cum. Supp. 2020).”
State v. Prado, 30 Neb. Ct. App. 223 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021).
“§ 27-414 (Reissue 2016) evidence, and (4) denying his motion to offer Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016) evidence.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(2)(a)(iii) — 3 cases
State v. Ali, 981 N.W.2d 821 (Neb. 2022).
“§§ 27-402 and 27-403 (Reissue 2016) and that it was inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Cum. Supp. 2020).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412(2)(b) — 1 case
In re Interest of Angel C. (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
“412, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (Reissue 2016). Efren’s counsel stated: Judge, this gets to motive as the timeline of events, per the parents, establishes that they took [the victim]’s phone away for her activity on that phone, and I would like to address .”
— 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, 300 Neb. 734 (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.