Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-701 (2026)
Rule 701. Opinion testimony by lay witnesses; when
✓ 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
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Rocha, 890 N.W.2d 178 (Neb. 2017).
State v. Rocha, 890 N.W.2d 178 (Neb. 2017). “18 But the abolition of the ultimate issue rule does not lower the bar so as to admit all opinions, because under rules 701 and 702, opinions must be helpful to the trier of fact, and rule 403 provides an additional basis 12 § 27-403.”
Reiber v. Cnty. of Gage, 928 N.W.2d 916 (Neb. 2019). “701, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-701 (Reissue 2016), and § 27-702.”
State v. Smith, 873 N.W.2d 169 (Neb. 2016). “” Spizzirri testified that she had “personal experience with [that] type of a photo album,” with “peeling away the clear sheet” and “putting a photo onto the sticky backing.”
State v. Ramos, 23 N.W.3d 640 (Neb. 2025). “Ramos did not object to Klippert’s identification testimony until after the State’s direct examination.”
Rodriguez v. Surgical Assocs., 905 N.W.2d 247 (Neb. 2018). “701, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-701 (Reissue 2016), provides: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his tes- timony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful…”
State v. Jacob, 494 N.W.2d 109 (Neb. 1993). “Section 27-701 states: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of his…”
State v. Archie, 733 N.W.2d 513 (Neb. 2007). “32 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-701 and 27-702 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Boppre, 453 N.W.2d 406 (Neb. 1990). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-701 (Reissue 1989) provides: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a…”
State v. McMillion, 23 Neb. Ct. App. 687 (Neb. Ct. App. 2016). “On appeal, McMillion claims that Howell’s opinions of the file creation dates were inadmissible because he is not an expert in date forgery analysis and his opinion is not appro- priate lay witness testimony under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-701 (Reissue 2008). She claims that Howell…”
Clark v. Scheels All Sports, 989 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 2023). “Based on Scheels’ actions, I believe Clark should have been able to argue her case to a fact finder and allow the fact finder to draw whatever logical inferences were warranted in light of the evidence adduced.”
State v. William, 435 N.W.2d 174 (Neb. 1989). “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-701 (Reissue 1979). It is generally admissible where it is necessary and advisable as an aid to the jury, but it should be excluded whenever the point is reached at which the trier of fact is being told that which it is itself entirely equipped to determine.”
Simon v. Drake, 829 N.W.2d 686 (Neb. 2013). “5 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-701 (Reissue 2008). 6 See Thone v.”
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.