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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (2026)

Rule 615. Exclusion of witnesses; exceptions

✓ 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

At the request of a party the judge shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and he may make the order on his own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: State v. Johnson, 988 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Johnson, 988 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 5× “3 [4] To establish reversible error from a court’s refusal to give a requested instruction, an appellant has the burden to show that (1) the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law, (2) the tendered instruction is warranted by the evidence, and (3) the appellant…”
In re Interest of Gabriel B., 976 N.W.2d 206 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “§ 27-615 (Reissue 2016), that the State needed to “make a showing” that Johnson needed to hear the testimony of other witnesses in order to form her opinion regarding Gabriel’s best interests.”
State v. Freeman, 677 N.W.2d 164 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 5× “ANALYSIS Designation of State’s Representative Prior to trial, the State filed a notice designating Brent Lottman, a deputy sheriff for Nemaha County, as its representative for trial, citing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (2) (Reissue 1995) and State v.”
State v. Trail, 981 N.W.2d 269 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 4× “[29-31] A mistrial is properly granted in a criminal case where an event occurs during the course of trial which is of such a nature that its damaging effect cannot be removed by proper admonition or instruction to the jury and thus prevents a fair trial.”
State v. Ryan, 444 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 5× “” During the trial, the court ordered that the witnesses be sequestered pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1985). The defendant contends that he was denied due process and his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him because the State had a…”
State v. Nesbitt, 650 N.W.2d 766 (Neb. 2002). · cites it 3× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1995). The prosecution, however, asked the district court to except Miller from the sequestration order to allow him to assist the State in obtaining witnesses and presenting its case.”
State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Miller, 602 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. 1999). · cites it 5× “Miller points to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1995) to support his claim that Sharon should have been excluded.”
State v. Jackson, 435 N.W.2d 893 (Neb. 1989). · cites it 2× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1985). The prosecutor informed the court as to why the presence of the State’s expert witness was essential to the State’s case: Further, your Honor, Dr.”
State v. Eynon, 250 N.W.2d 658 (Neb. 1977). · cites it 2× “1943, requires exclusion of witnesses, but contains three exceptions, one of which is “(3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.” The record establishes that in this case the victim comes within the exception.”
Dennis W. v. Mental Health Bd., 717 N.W.2d 488 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “Here, Dennis asserts that the district court erred in affirming the decision of the Board to allow Dr.”
State v. Hunter, 451 N.W.2d 922 (Neb. 1990). · cites it 2× “Claiming the Douglas County Court failed to sequester the prosecution’s witnesses, as mandated by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1989), Carol Hunter appeals her convictions for violation of two municipal dog ordinances in Omaha.”
State v. Embree, 987 N.W.2d 297 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 10× “While Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (3) (Reissue 2016) requires a showing that a person is essential to the presentation of the cause, it does not require the party to present any evidence on the matter.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615(1): 1 case
State v. Johnson, 988 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. 2023). “3 [4] To establish reversible error from a court’s refusal to give a requested instruction, an appellant has the burden to show that (1) the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law, (2) the tendered instruction is warranted by the evidence, and (3) the appellant…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615(2): 4 cases
State v. Freeman, 677 N.W.2d 164 (Neb. 2004). “ANALYSIS Designation of State’s Representative Prior to trial, the State filed a notice designating Brent Lottman, a deputy sheriff for Nemaha County, as its representative for trial, citing Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (2) (Reissue 1995) and State v.”
State v. Ryan, 444 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 1989). “” During the trial, the court ordered that the witnesses be sequestered pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1985). The defendant contends that he was denied due process and his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him because the State had a…”
State v. Carmenates, No. A-18-350, 2019 WL 1130376 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2019).
State v. Herrera, No. A-24-685 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2025).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615(3): 3 cases
State v. Nesbitt, 650 N.W.2d 766 (Neb. 2002). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1995). The prosecution, however, asked the district court to except Miller from the sequestration order to allow him to assist the State in obtaining witnesses and presenting its case.”
State ex rel. Nebraska State Bar Ass'n v. Miller, 602 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. 1999). “Miller points to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (Reissue 1995) to support his claim that Sharon should have been excluded.”
State v. Embree, 987 N.W.2d 297 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023). “While Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-615 (3) (Reissue 2016) requires a showing that a person is essential to the presentation of the cause, it does not require the party to present any evidence on the matter.”
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.