If a witness uses a writing to refresh his memory for the purpose of testifying, either before or while testifying, an adverse party is entitled to have it produced at the hearing, to inspect it, to cross-examine the witness thereon, and to introduce in evidence those portions which relate to the testimony of the witness. If it is claimed that the writing contains matters not related to the subject matter of the testimony, the judge shall examine the writing in camera, excise any portions not so related, and order delivery of the remainder to the party entitled thereto. Any portion withheld over objections shall be preserved and made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal. If a writing is not produced or delivered pursuant to order under this rule, the judge shall make any order justice requires.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case:
State v. McMillion, 23 Neb. Ct. App. 687 (Neb. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. McMillion, 23 Neb. Ct. App. 687 (Neb. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-612 (Reissue 2008). Section 27-612 requires production of not only documents used to refresh recollection in the courtroom while the wit- ness is testifying, but also those writings the witness reviewed prior to giving testimony.”
State v. Wood, 966 N.W.2d 825 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 3× “The prosecu- tion relied on the fact that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-612 (Reissue 2016) refers only to writings, as well as the case of State v.”
State v. Boppre, 453 N.W.2d 406 (Neb. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The district court granted Boppre’s discovery motion as to all *942 items, except the three listed above on the basis that the above requests were outside the scope of Neb. Rev.”
State v. Jimenez, 530 N.W.2d 257 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 8× “Jimenez argues that it was an abuse of discretion to deny him the opportunity to review the notes prior to trial, and as a result, he was deprived of a substantial right of effective assistance of counsel and the ability to prepare for trial. The district *263 court noted at the…”
RAELINGS v. Andersen, 240 N.W.2d 568 (Neb. 1976).
· cites it 4× “Plaintiff relies upon section 27-612, R.S.Supp., 1975, effective August 24, 1975.”
State v. Jones, 577 N.W.2d 302 (Neb. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 2× “612, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-612 (Reissue 1995), he wanted access to the full report.”
State v. Schroder, 439 N.W.2d 489 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-612 (Reissue 1985). About 9:30 p.”
State v. McMillion (Neb. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-612 (Reissue 2008). Section 27-612 requires production of not only documents used to refresh recollection in the courtroom while the wit- ness is testifying, but also those writings the witness reviewed prior to giving testimony.”
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.