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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609 (2026)

Rule 609. Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime; general rule; time limit; effect of pardon, annulment, or equivalent procedure; juvenile adjudications; pendency of appeal

✓ 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) For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination, but only if the crime (a) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted or (b) involved dishonesty or false statement regardless of the punishment.

(2) Evidence of a conviction under this rule is not admissible if a period of more than ten years has elapsed since the date of such conviction or of the release of the witness from confinement, whichever is the later date.

(3) Evidence of a conviction is not admissible under this rule if the conviction has been the subject of a pardon, annulment, or other equivalent procedure which was based on innocence.

(4) Evidence of juvenile adjudications is not admissible under this rule.

(5) Pendency of an appeal renders evidence of a conviction inadmissible.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Leon-Simaj, 913 N.W.2d 722 (Neb. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Leon-Simaj, 913 N.W.2d 722 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 6× “Further, any "crime" would be an inadmissible juvenile adjudication, as well as "petit larceny," which would not qualify as a crime of dishonesty under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609 (Reissue 2016). Finally, the State asserted the testimony was excludable under Neb.”
State v. Stricklin, 916 N.W.2d 413 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 3× “In fact, we addressed the interplay between § 27-608 and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609 (Reissue 2016) for the first time in Stricklin's direct appeal, noting it appeared there had been confusion on that issue and we had not previously addressed it.”
State v. Clausen, 951 N.W.2d 764 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 6× “Parties can only ask witnesses relevant questions that “make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would without the evidence.”
State v. Ellis, 303 N.W.2d 741 (Neb. 1981). · cites it 8× “" The defendant also complains that the trial court prohibited the defendant from inquiring of the witness Burns as to a prior petit larceny conviction as constituting an act of dishonesty within the meaning of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-609 (Reissue 1979). He also claims that he was…”
State v. Gore, 322 N.W.2d 438 (Neb. 1982). · cites it 18× “The relevant portion of that statute provides: "(1) For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination, but only if the crime…”
State v. Custer, 903 N.W.2d 911 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 4× “Custer contends that counsel should have invoked Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609 (Reissue 2016), which deals with the impeach- ment by evidence of a conviction for a crime.”
State v. Daugherty, 337 N.W.2d 128 (Neb. 1983). · cites it 10× “Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-609 (Reissue 1979) provides in part: "(1) For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination, but only if the…”
State v. Schreiner, 754 N.W.2d 742 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 2× “609(1)(b), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609 (1)(b) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Williams, 326 N.W.2d 678 (Neb. 1982). · cites it 5× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609 (1) (Reissue 1979) provides: ‘‘For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination, but only if the…”
Czech v. Allen, 21 N.W.3d 1 (Neb. 2025). · cites it 5× “§ 27-403 (Reissue 2016), because it had “no impeach- ment value” and would be unduly prejudicial to him, confuse or mislead the jury, and cause undue delay.”
Sturzenegger v. Father Flanagan's Boys'home, 754 N.W.2d 406 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 2× “[36] Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609 (Reissue 1995). [37] See State v.”
State v. Hawthorne, 431 N.W.2d 630 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 4× “Hawthorne bases his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the fact that his retained lawyer, during direct examination of Hawthorne at trial, elicited that, more than 10 years before the trial for first degree sexual assault, Hawthorne was convicted of a felony, which…”
Show all 76 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609(1): 8 cases
State v. Clausen, 951 N.W.2d 764 (Neb. 2020). “Parties can only ask witnesses relevant questions that “make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would without the evidence.”
State v. Custer, 903 N.W.2d 911 (Neb. 2017). “Custer contends that counsel should have invoked Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609 (Reissue 2016), which deals with the impeach- ment by evidence of a conviction for a crime.”
State v. Williams, 326 N.W.2d 678 (Neb. 1982). “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609 (1) (Reissue 1979) provides: ‘‘For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination, but only if the…”
State v. Lingle, 308 N.W.2d 531 (Neb. 1981).
State v. Gore, 322 N.W.2d 438 (Neb. 1982). “The relevant portion of that statute provides: "(1) For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination, but only if the crime…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609(1)(a): 1 case
In re Guardianship of Kyoko R., No. A-18-595 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609(2): 2 cases
State v. Hawthorne, 431 N.W.2d 630 (Neb. 1988). “Hawthorne bases his ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the fact that his retained lawyer, during direct examination of Hawthorne at trial, elicited that, more than 10 years before the trial for first degree sexual assault, Hawthorne was convicted of a felony, which…”
State v. Pitts, 322 N.W.2d 443 (Neb. 1982).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609(4): 3 cases
State v. Tucker, 598 N.W.2d 742 (Neb. 1999).
State v. Caradori, 260 N.W.2d 617 (Neb. 1977).
State v. Dimmitt, 560 N.W.2d 498 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609(5): 2 cases
Czech v. Allen, 21 N.W.3d 1 (Neb. 2025). “§ 27-403 (Reissue 2016), because it had “no impeach- ment value” and would be unduly prejudicial to him, confuse or mislead the jury, and cause undue delay.”
Ipock v. Union Ins., 495 N.W.2d 905 (Neb. 1993).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-609(l)(b): 1 case
Stephanie Olson v. Jeff Little, 604 F. App'x 387 (6th Cir. 2015).
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.