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

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
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, 927 N.W.2d 25 (Neb. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Munoz, 927 N.W.2d 25 (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, 857 N.W.2d 334 (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, 951 N.W.2d 764 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 11× “[9] Section 27-513(2) makes it clear that courts must avoid having witnesses claim privilege in the presence of the jury whenever practicable. 10 The statutory subsection states: “In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the…”
State v. Britt, 963 N.W.2d 533 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 3× “20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 See State v. Davis, 290 Neb.”
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× “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. Sanchez, No. A-20-351 (Neb. Ct. App. June 29, 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, 857 N.W.2d 334 (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, 951 N.W.2d 764 (Neb. 2020). “[9] Section 27-513(2) makes it clear that courts must avoid having witnesses claim privilege in the presence of the jury whenever practicable. 10 The statutory subsection states: “In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to facilitate the…”
State v. Munoz, 927 N.W.2d 25 (Neb. 2019). “513(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513 (2) (Reissue 2016), and failing to challenge blood spatter evidence.”
State v. Sanchez, No. A-20-351 (Neb. Ct. App. June 29, 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, No. A-14-1081, 2015 WL 7261034 (Neb. Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2015).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-513(3): 2 cases
State v. Draper, 857 N.W.2d 334 (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, No. A-20-351 (Neb. Ct. App. June 29, 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.