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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (2026)

Rule 513. Comment on or inference from claim of privilege improper; jury instruction

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

(1) The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceeding or upon a prior occasion, is not a proper subject of comment by judge or counsel. No inference may be drawn therefrom.

(2) In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the making of claims of privilege without the knowledge of the jury.

(3) Upon request, any party against whom the jury might draw an adverse inference from a claim of privilege is entitled to an instruction that no inference may be drawn therefrom.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1938–2025 · leading case: State v. Munoz, 303 Neb. 69 (Neb. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Munoz, 303 Neb. 69 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 7× “513(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (2) (Reissue 2016), and failing to challenge blood spatter evidence.”
State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777 (Neb. 2015). · cites it 19× “513, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (Reissue 2008), we reverse the convictions and remand the cause for a new trial.”
State v. Clausen, 307 Neb. 968 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 11× “Clausen countered that Dixon would only invoke privilege on collateral matters and that because he was critical to Clausen’s defense, Dixon should be allowed to testify. The court ruled that Dixon would not be allowed to testify.”
State v. Britt, 310 Neb. 69 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 3× “(a) Davis [9,10] Britt cannot prove that he suffered prejudice by his counsel’s failure to call Davis as a witness, because the court would not have allowed Davis to testify.”
State v. Robinson, 715 N.W.2d 531 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 2× “513, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (Reissue 1995). The claim of a privilege is not a proper subject of comment by judge or counsel, and no inference may be drawn therefrom.”
State v. Fahlk, 524 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 2× “The court denied Fahlk’s request to admonish the jury.”
State v. Nissen, 560 N.W.2d 157 (Neb. 1997). · cites it 2× “513, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (1) (Reissue 1995), provides, “The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceeding or upon a prior occasion, is not a proper subject *71 of comment by judge or counsel.”
State v. Gregory, 371 N.W.2d 754 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 2× “He argues that by asking this question, the prosecutor was commenting on his claim of the privilege against self-incrimination, which is impermissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (Reissue 1979): (1) The claim of a privilege, whether in the present proceeding or upon a prior…”
Swan v. Bowker, 281 N.W. 891 (Neb. 1938). · cites it 2× “Section 27-513, provides: “And the defendant shall also, on or before the first day of the term at which the case stands for trial, file in such court his answer containing any set-off or other defense he may have.”
State v. Fahlk, 510 N.W.2d 97 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “513, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (Reissue 1989). Fahlk claims that a “negative, even fatal inference from the State’s impermissible reference to Mrs.”
State v. Munoz, 303 Neb. 69 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 9× “Effectiveness of Counsel: Postconviction: Records: Appeal and Error. 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…”
State v. Sanchez (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (2) (Reissue 2016) provides that “proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the making of claims of privilege without the knowledge of the jury.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513(2) — 7 cases
State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777 (Neb. 2015). “513, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (Reissue 2008), we reverse the convictions and remand the cause for a new trial.”
State v. Clausen, 307 Neb. 968 (Neb. 2020). “Clausen countered that Dixon would only invoke privilege on collateral matters and that because he was critical to Clausen’s defense, Dixon should be allowed to testify. The court ruled that Dixon would not be allowed to testify.”
State v. Munoz, 303 Neb. 69 (Neb. 2019). “513(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (2) (Reissue 2016), and failing to challenge blood spatter evidence.”
State v. Sanchez (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (2) (Reissue 2016) provides that “proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the making of claims of privilege without the knowledge of the jury.”
State v. Bates (Neb. Ct. App. 2015).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513(3) — 2 cases
State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777 (Neb. 2015). “513, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (Reissue 2008), we reverse the convictions and remand the cause for a new trial.”
State v. Sanchez (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (2) (Reissue 2016) provides that “proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the making of claims of privilege without the knowledge of the jury.”
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.