(1) The credibility of a witness may be attacked or supported by evidence in the form of reputation or opinion, but subject to these limitations: (a) The evidence may refer only to character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, and (b) evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the character of the witness for truthfulness has been attacked by opinion or reputation evidence or otherwise.
(2) Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in section 27-609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (a) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (b) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.
The giving of testimony, whether by an accused or by any other witness, does not operate as a waiver of his privilege against self-incrimination when examined with respect to matters which relate only to credibility.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
51
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
State v. Carpenter, 880 N.W.2d 630 (Neb. 2016).
State v. Carpenter, 880 N.W.2d 630 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 27× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2) (Reissue 2008) does not affect the admissibility of evidence that has become relevant and admissible under the specific contradiction doctrine.”
State v. Stricklin, 300 Neb. 794 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 7× “54 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Grp., 880 N.W.2d 885 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 10× “608(2)(a), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2)(a) (Reissue 2008), to admit evidence of prior conduct to impeach a wit- ness’ credibility, so long as the evidence is probative of the witness’ character for truthfulness.”
State v. Rocha, 890 N.W.2d 178 (Neb. 2017).
· cites it 2× “608, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (Reissue 2016). 24 State v.”
State v. Schreiner, 754 N.W.2d 742 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 5× “[18] See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Lierman, 305 Neb. 289 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 3× “on this point was improper under § 27-403 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Garcia, 994 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 2023).
· cites it 4× “But we agree that all three statements amounted to the improper bolstering of Hoffmann on direct examination, which is not permitted by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (1)(b) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Said, 306 Neb. 314 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 7× “608, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Harris, 640 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 4× “608, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-608 (Reissue 1995); a motion in limine relating to the subornation of perjury; and a motion in limine relating to the use of "Homicide" as Hicks' nickname.”
State v. Leon-Simaj, 300 Neb. 317 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Defense counsel apologized and explained that he had thought it was proper under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (Reissue 2016) to elicit testimony as to specific instances of conduct.”
State v. Faust, 660 N.W.2d 844 (Neb. 2003).
· cites it 4× “We do not address this issue on appeal, but should the issue arise again on retrial, we caution the attorneys and the court to consider the purpose for which the testimony is offered and whether the testimony is admissible under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-608 (Reissue 1995). CONCLUSION…”
State v. King, 250 N.W.2d 655 (Neb. 1977).
· cites it 14× “” Section 27-608, R. R. S. 1943, is part of the Nebraska Rules of Evidence, adopted by our Legislature in 1975.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608(1) — 3 cases
State v. Carpenter, 880 N.W.2d 630 (Neb. 2016).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2) (Reissue 2008) does not affect the admissibility of evidence that has become relevant and admissible under the specific contradiction doctrine.”
State v. King, 250 N.W.2d 655 (Neb. 1977).
“” Section 27-608, R. R. S. 1943, is part of the Nebraska Rules of Evidence, adopted by our Legislature in 1975.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608(1)(a) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Garcia, 994 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 2023).
“But we agree that all three statements amounted to the improper bolstering of Hoffmann on direct examination, which is not permitted by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (1)(b) (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608(2) — 10 cases
State v. Carpenter, 880 N.W.2d 630 (Neb. 2016).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2) (Reissue 2008) does not affect the admissibility of evidence that has become relevant and admissible under the specific contradiction doctrine.”
State v. Stricklin, 300 Neb. 794 (Neb. 2018).
“54 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Said, 306 Neb. 314 (Neb. 2020).
“608, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2) (Reissue 2016).”
Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Grp., 880 N.W.2d 885 (Neb. 2016).
“608(2)(a), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2)(a) (Reissue 2008), to admit evidence of prior conduct to impeach a wit- ness’ credibility, so long as the evidence is probative of the witness’ character for truthfulness.”
State v. Schreiner, 754 N.W.2d 742 (Neb. 2008).
“[18] See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-608 (2) (Reissue 1995).”
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.