Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (2026)
Rule 801. Definitions; statement, declarant, hearsay; statements which are not hearsay
✓ 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
The following definitions apply under this article:
(1) A statement is (a) an oral or written assertion or (b) nonverbal conduct of a person, if it is intended by him or her as an assertion;
(2) A declarant is a person who makes a statement;
(3) Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted; and
(4) A statement is not hearsay if:
(a) The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement (i) is inconsistent with his or her testimony and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, (ii) is consistent with his or her testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him or her of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (iii) identifies a person as someone the declarant perceived earlier; or
(b) The statement is offered against a party and is (i) his or her own statement, in either his or her individual or a representative capacity, (ii) a statement of which he or she has manifested his or her adoption or belief in its truth, (iii) a statement by a person authorized by him or her to make a statement concerning the subject, (iv) a statement by his or her agent or servant within the scope of his or her agency or employment, or (v) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 271
cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016).
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016). “The court overruled the objection and found that the coconspirator exclusion to the hearsay rule set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(b) (Reissue 2008) applied.”
State v. Hibler, 923 N.W.2d 398 (Neb. 2019). “’s responses that would be appropriate for impeachment purposes and, in addition, found them to be more prejudicial than probative. We have reviewed the record, and it shows that the messages were not inconsistent with A.”
Jordan v. LSF8 Master Participation Trust, 915 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 2018). “The court found the statements in the briefs to be nonhearsay under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(b) (Reissue 2016) and relevant to LSF8's arguments of issue preclusion, collateral estoppel, and ratification.”
State v. Swindle, 915 N.W.2d 795 (Neb. 2018). “55 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (3) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Boswell, 5 N.W.3d 747 (Neb. 2024). “Boswell appeals, represented by trial counsel. II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR All of Boswell’s assigned errors challenge the admission of evidence during the guilt phase of her trial.”
State v. Estrada Comacho, 960 N.W.2d 739 (Neb. 2021). “§ 27-801 (4) (Reissue 2016), and any challenges to the accuracy of the translation go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility.”
State v. Savage, 920 N.W.2d 692 (Neb. 2018). “Generally, hearsay evidence, as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (Reissue 2016), is not admissible unless it fits within an exception *704 to the rule against hearsay.”
State v. Smith, 873 N.W.2d 169 (Neb. 2016). “801(4)(a)(ii), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(a)(ii) (Reissue 2008).”
State v. Wood, 966 N.W.2d 825 (Neb. 2021). “2020)—statements offered against a party that are by a person authorized by the party, by the party’s agent or servant, or by the party’s coconspirator—to be attacked by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness, without…”
State v. Trice, 874 N.W.2d 286 (Neb. 2016). “The trial court overruled the hearsay objection, finding the statement was admissible as a prior consistent statement under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(a)(ii) (Reissue 2008).”
State v. Figures, 957 N.W.2d 161 (Neb. 2021). “- 823 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FIGURES After the jury was sent to deliberate, Figures moved for a mistrial.”
Gourley Ex Rel. Gourley v. Nebraska Methodist Health Sys., Inc., 663 N.W.2d 43 (Neb. 2003). “Initially, Knolla and the OB/GYN Group claim that the book contained inadmissible hearsay statements.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(1): 11 cases
State v. Draganescu, 755 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 2008).
In re Est. of Walker, 315 Neb. 510 (2023).
State v. Duncan, 657 N.W.2d 620 (Neb. 2003).
State v. Pruett, 638 N.W.2d 809 (Neb. 2002).
Brown v. Morello, 957 N.W.2d 884 (Neb. 2021).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(1)(a): 2 cases
Paw K. v. Christian G., 997 N.W.2d 84 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
Carmela H. v. Luke S., No. A-25-615 (Neb. Ct. App. May 5, 2026).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(2): 1 case
State v. McGuire, 947 N.W.2d 118 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(3): 27 cases
Gourley Ex Rel. Gourley v. Nebraska Methodist Health Sys., Inc., 663 N.W.2d 43 (Neb. 2003). “Initially, Knolla and the OB/GYN Group claim that the book contained inadmissible hearsay statements.”
Jordan v. LSF8 Master Participation Trust, 915 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 2018). “The court found the statements in the briefs to be nonhearsay under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(b) (Reissue 2016) and relevant to LSF8's arguments of issue preclusion, collateral estoppel, and ratification.”
State v. Wood, 966 N.W.2d 825 (Neb. 2021). “2020)—statements offered against a party that are by a person authorized by the party, by the party’s agent or servant, or by the party’s coconspirator—to be attacked by any evidence that would be admissible for those purposes if the declarant had testified as a witness, without…”
State v. Hansen, 562 N.W.2d 840 (Neb. 1997).
State v. Duncan, 657 N.W.2d 620 (Neb. 2003).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4): 7 cases
State v. Lotter, 586 N.W.2d 591 (Neb. 1998).
State v. Estrada Comacho, 960 N.W.2d 739 (Neb. 2021). “§ 27-801 (4) (Reissue 2016), and any challenges to the accuracy of the translation go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility.”
State v. Hansen, 562 N.W.2d 840 (Neb. 1997).
Gerken v. Hy Vee, Inc., 660 N.W.2d 893 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Crouse, No. A-25-213 (Neb. Ct. App. May 19, 2026).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4)(a): 3 cases
Rowe v. Farmers Ins. Co., Inc., 699 S.W.2d 423 (Mo. 1985).
State v. Moore, 547 N.W.2d 159 (Neb. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Castor, 599 N.W.2d 201 (Neb. 1999).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4)(a)(2): 1 case
State v. Bedolla, No. A-17-353 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2018).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4)(a)(i): 4 cases
State v. Tyson, 876 N.W.2d 13 (Neb. Ct. App. 2016).
Behm v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 491 N.W.2d 334 (Neb. 1992).
State v. Owens, 589 N.W.2d 867 (Neb. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Tyson, No. A-15-054 (Neb. Ct. App. Feb. 23, 2016).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4)(a)(ii): 9 cases
State v. Hibler, 923 N.W.2d 398 (Neb. 2019). “’s responses that would be appropriate for impeachment purposes and, in addition, found them to be more prejudicial than probative. We have reviewed the record, and it shows that the messages were not inconsistent with A.”
State v. Trice, 874 N.W.2d 286 (Neb. 2016). “The trial court overruled the hearsay objection, finding the statement was admissible as a prior consistent statement under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(a)(ii) (Reissue 2008).”
In Re Brian B., 689 N.W.2d 184 (Neb. 2004).
State v. Neal, 658 N.W.2d 694 (Neb. 2003).
In Re Interest of Dj, 397 N.W.2d 616 (Neb. 1986).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4)(b): 14 cases
Jordan v. LSF8 Master Participation Trust, 915 N.W.2d 399 (Neb. 2018). “The court found the statements in the briefs to be nonhearsay under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(b) (Reissue 2016) and relevant to LSF8's arguments of issue preclusion, collateral estoppel, and ratification.”
State v. Hudson, 775 N.W.2d 429 (Neb. 2009).
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016). “The court overruled the objection and found that the coconspirator exclusion to the hearsay rule set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(b) (Reissue 2008) applied.”
State v. Trice, 874 N.W.2d 286 (Neb. 2016). “The trial court overruled the hearsay objection, finding the statement was admissible as a prior consistent statement under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(a)(ii) (Reissue 2008).”
State v. Figures, 957 N.W.2d 161 (Neb. 2021). “- 823 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 308 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FIGURES After the jury was sent to deliberate, Figures moved for a mistrial.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4)(b)(i): 9 cases
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016). “The court overruled the objection and found that the coconspirator exclusion to the hearsay rule set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(b) (Reissue 2008) applied.”
State v. Swindle, 915 N.W.2d 795 (Neb. 2018). “55 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (3) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Savage, 920 N.W.2d 692 (Neb. 2018). “Generally, hearsay evidence, as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (Reissue 2016), is not admissible unless it fits within an exception *704 to the rule against hearsay.”
State v. Nguot, No. A-18-095 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2019).
Holman v. Papio-missouri River Nat. Res., 523 N.W.2d 510 (Neb. 1994).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4)(b)(ii): 1 case
State v. Trice, 874 N.W.2d 286 (Neb. 2016). “The trial court overruled the hearsay objection, finding the statement was admissible as a prior consistent statement under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(a)(ii) (Reissue 2008).”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4)(b)(iv): 4 cases
Gerken v. Hy Vee, Inc., 660 N.W.2d 893 (Neb. Ct. App. 2003).
Walker v. BNSF Ry. Co., 946 N.W.2d 656 (Neb. 2020).
Noah's Ark Processors v. UniFirst Corp., 310 Neb. 896 (2022).
Noah's Ark Processors v. UniFirst Corp., 970 N.W.2d 72 (Neb. 2022).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4)(b)(v): 5 cases
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016). “The court overruled the objection and found that the coconspirator exclusion to the hearsay rule set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (4)(b) (Reissue 2008) applied.”
State v. Boswell, 5 N.W.3d 747 (Neb. 2024). “Boswell appeals, represented by trial counsel. II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR All of Boswell’s assigned errors challenge the admission of evidence during the guilt phase of her trial.”
State v. Estrada Comacho, 960 N.W.2d 739 (Neb. 2021). “§ 27-801 (4) (Reissue 2016), and any challenges to the accuracy of the translation go to the weight of the evidence and not to its admissibility.”
State v. Hudson, 775 N.W.2d 429 (Neb. 2009).
State v. Britt, 881 N.W.2d 818 (Neb. 2016).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(4)(d)(v): 1 case
State v. Boswell, 5 N.W.3d 747 (Neb. 2024). “Boswell appeals, represented by trial counsel. II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR All of Boswell’s assigned errors challenge the admission of evidence during the guilt phase of her trial.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(b)(b)(v): 1 case
State v. Boswell, 5 N.W.3d 747 (Neb. 2024). “Boswell appeals, represented by trial counsel. II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR All of Boswell’s assigned errors challenge the admission of evidence during the guilt phase of her trial.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801(l)(a): 1 case
State v. Wilson, 406 N.W.2d 123 (Neb. 1987).
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.