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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (2026)

Rule 613. Prior statements of witnesses; examining witness concerning prior statement; extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statement by witness

✓ 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) In examining a witness concerning a prior statement made by him, whether written or not, the statement need not be shown or its contents disclosed to him at that time, but on request the same shall be shown or disclosed to opposing counsel.

(2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate him thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in subdivision (4)(b) of section 27-801.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Cook, 667 N.W.2d 201 (Neb. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Cook, 667 N.W.2d 201 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 4× “With respect to Hombacher’s statements during the conversation, Cook argues that his testimony was admissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (Reissue 1995) as extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness regarding a material fact.”
State v. Wood, 966 N.W.2d 825 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 2× “Also, a child may not disclose all the details involved in the assault during the forensic interview.”
State v. Al-Zubaidy, 641 N.W.2d 362 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 3× “613(2), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (2) (Reissue 1995), which provides in part that “[e]xtrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an…”
State v. Npimnee, 2 N.W.3d 620 (Neb. 2024). · cites it 2× “initially told officers that Npimnee had digitally penetrated her and that he might have attempted penile penetration in addition to expos- ing himself to her.”
State v. McCurry, 891 N.W.2d 663 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “613[, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (Reissue 2016)].”
State v. Ballew, 867 N.W.2d 571 (Neb. 2015). · cites it 4× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-613 and 27-801 (Reissue 2008).”
Harmon Cable Commc'ns of Nebraska Ltd. P'ship v. Scope Cable Television, Inc., 468 N.W.2d 350 (Neb. 1991). · cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (Reissue 1989) reads, in pertinent part: “(2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity…”
State v. Lester, 898 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 2× “The State argues that § 27-608 is the wrong framework and suggests that because Jaslyn’s testimony refers to Terpstra’s prior state- ment rather than his prior conduct, its admissibility is gov- erned by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (2) (Reissue 2016), which excludes extrinsic…”
Hyde v. Cleveland, 279 N.W.2d 105 (Neb. 1979). · cites it 4× “eposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used against any party who was present * * * at the taking of the deposition * * * in accordance with any of the following provisions: (1) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting…”
State v. Johnson, 370 N.W.2d 136 (Neb. 1985). · cites it 4× “Third, Johnson argues the inconsistent statements at the attorney’s office were admissible to impeach the credibility of the witnesses under Rule 613 ( Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (Reissue 1979)).”
State v. Herrera, 856 N.W.2d 310 (Neb. 2014). · cites it 2× “613, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (Reissue 2008), dealing with extrinsic evidence of prior incon- sistent statements by a witness as controlling the admissibility of the Capstone interviews.”
State v. Watkins, 419 N.W.2d 660 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 2× “613(2) ( Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (2) (Reissue 1985)).”
Show all 29 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613(1): 1 case
State v. Wheeler, No. A-21-1036, 2022 WL 16557378 (Neb. Ct. App. Nov. 1, 2022).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613(2): 7 cases
State v. Cook, 667 N.W.2d 201 (Neb. 2003). “With respect to Hombacher’s statements during the conversation, Cook argues that his testimony was admissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (Reissue 1995) as extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness regarding a material fact.”
Harmon Cable Commc'ns of Nebraska Ltd. P'ship v. Scope Cable Television, Inc., 468 N.W.2d 350 (Neb. 1991). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-613 (Reissue 1989) reads, in pertinent part: “(2) Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity…”
State v. Al-Zubaidy, 559 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Antillon, 426 N.W.2d 533 (Neb. 1988).
State v. Owens, 589 N.W.2d 867 (Neb. Ct. App. 1999).
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.