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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (2026)

Rule 611. Mode and order of interrogation and presentation; control by judge; scope of cross-examination; leading questions

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

(1) The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (a) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (b) avoid needless consumption of time, and (c) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.

(2) Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. The judge may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct examination.

(3) Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness except as may be necessary to develop his testimony. Ordinarily leading questions should be permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: State v. Pangborn, 836 N.W.2d 790 (Neb. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Pangborn, 836 N.W.2d 790 (Neb. 2013). · cites it 5× “611(1), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (1) (Reissue 2008).”
State v. Foster, 300 Neb. 883 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “The trial court overruled the objection, finding that Martini was a hostile witness under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (Reissue 2016) and that the testimony was permissible as long as the questions were confined to Martini's prior statements in a police report, rather than Martini's…”
In re Interest of Alan L., 294 Neb. 261 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 2× “Alan argues that in the second amended commitment motion, the only new allegations were the claims that (1) he had sabo- taged a placement at an Arizona residential treatment facility and (2) no other suitable placements were available. He con- tends that res judicata, i.”
State v. Bjorklund, 604 N.W.2d 169 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 3× “Here, the State filed a motion in limine prohibiting any reference to polygraph examinations or to the fact that Bjorklund offered to take a polygraph examination. The trial court granted that motion, and, at trial, defense counsel sought to have the trial court reconsider its…”
State v. Wood, 966 N.W.2d 825 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 2× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (1) (Reissue 2016), the trial judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of inter- rogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, avoid…”
State v. Draper, 289 Neb. 777 (Neb. 2015). · cites it 3× “However, as in Douglas, the nature of the State’s questioning itself left no meaningful opportunity for cross-examination. Recall that in Douglas, the Court determined that the witness was not available for cross-examination, because the witness actually gave no testimony.”
State v. Kuehn, 728 N.W.2d 589 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (2) (Reissue 1995) provides that “[c]ross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”
Rahmig v. Mosley Mach. Co., 412 N.W.2d 56 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 2× “611 ( Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (Reissue 1985)) provides in part: “(1) The judge shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (a) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of…”
In re Est. of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237 (Neb. 2015). · cites it 2× “Here, there was no infringement of the contestants’ broad right to cross-examination. The contestants were able to cross- examine the individual who supervised the 2001 will execu- tion—and who was the person responsible for making and preserving the video.”
State v. Copple, 401 N.W.2d 141 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 2× “611 ( Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (1) (Reissue 1985)).”
State v. Reeves, 453 N.W.2d 359 (Neb. 1990). · cites it 2× “The presiding judge has the authority to exercise reasonable control over the mode of questions for the witnesses for the ascertainment of the truth (Section 27-611 R.R.S.). The trial record shows that the court merely sustained the State’s objections when questions asked were…”
State v. McLemore, 623 N.W.2d 315 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 2× “611(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (2) (Reissue 1995), courts limit cross-examination of witnesses to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611(1) — 1 case
State v. Pangborn, 836 N.W.2d 790 (Neb. 2013). “611(1), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (1) (Reissue 2008).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611(2) — 2 cases
State v. Pangborn, 836 N.W.2d 790 (Neb. 2013). “611(1), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-611 (1) (Reissue 2008).”
State v. Qasim (Neb. Ct. App. 2024).
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.