(1) A person commits the offense of tampering with a witness or informant if, believing that an official proceeding or investigation of a criminal or civil matter is pending or about to be instituted, he or she attempts to induce or otherwise cause a witness or informant to:
(a) Testify or inform falsely;
(b) Withhold any testimony, information, document, or thing;
(c) Elude legal process summoning him or her to testify or supply evidence; or
(d) Absent himself or herself from any proceeding or investigation to which he or she has been legally summoned.
(2) A person commits the offense of jury tampering if, with intent to influence a juror's vote, opinion, decision, or other action in a case, he or she attempts directly or indirectly to communicate with a juror other than as a part of the proceedings in the trial of the case.
(3) Tampering with witnesses or informants is a Class IV felony, except that if such offense involves a pending criminal proceeding which alleges a violation of another offense classified:
(a) As a Class II misdemeanor or a lower classification or a violation of a city or village ordinance, the offense is a Class I misdemeanor; or
(b) As a Class II felony or a higher classification, the offense is a Class II felony.
(4) Jury tampering is a Class IV felony, except that if such offense involves a pending criminal proceeding which alleges a violation of another offense classified as a Class II felony or a higher classification, the offense is a Class II felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case:
State v. Haynes, 299 Neb. 249 (Neb. 2018).
State v. Haynes, 299 Neb. 249 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Under count I, he was charged with tampering with a witness, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919 (1) (Reissue 2008), a Class IV felony.”
State v. Cisneros, 535 N.W.2d 703 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 14× “§ 28-802 (Reissue 1989); and two counts of tampering with a witness, Neb. Rev.Stat. § 28-919 (Reissue 1989). Cisneros' case was set for trial on August 23, 1993.”
State v. Guzman, 305 Neb. 376 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 3× “was mentally or physically incapable of resisting or appraising the nature of her conduct.”
State v. Benson, 305 Neb. 949 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 4× “Benson was charged under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919 (1) (Reissue 2016), which provides, in relevant part: (1) A person commits the offense of tampering with a witness .”
State v. Anderson, 305 Neb. 978 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 2× “01(2) and new counts of tampering with a witness or informant in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919 (Reissue 2016) and violating a protection order in violation of Neb.”
State v. Bedford, 980 N.W.2d 451 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “A defendant’s reasons for attempting to induce a witness to commit any of the acts enumerated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919 (1) (Cum. Supp. 2020) are not relevant.”
Augustin Valenzuela Gallardo v. Loretta E. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “6 6 After Valenzuela Gallardo was issued in 2012, the Eighth Circuit similarly interpreted Espinoza-Gonzales to mean that a Nebraska witness- tampering statute ( Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919 (1)) is a crime “relating to obstruction of justice” for purposes of § 1101(a)(43)(S).”
State v. Huff, 776 N.W.2d 498 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 2× “CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed, we affirm the order of the district court overruling Huff's plea in bar and remand for further proceedings.”
In Re Empson, 562 N.W.2d 817 (Neb. 1997).
· cites it 6× “The master, noting his previous finding that the "fat glob" statement was, in fact, made, found that respondent's conduct in contacting Heineman was in violation of Canons 1, 1(A), 2, and 2(A) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and § 24-722(6) and Neb. Rev.Stat. § 28-919 (Reissue…”
State v. Pratt, 249 N.W.2d 495 (Neb. 1977).
· cites it 4× “The defendant was convicted of sodomy, a crime carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years, section 28-919, R.R.S.1943, and received a sentence of 5 to 10 years.”
State v. Larkins, 755 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 2008).
· cites it 2× “01 to have an appellate court render an advisory opinion on narrow factual issues regardless of whether the opinion may, or may not, have some marginal precedential value in the future.”
State v. Nissen, 560 N.W.2d 157 (Neb. 1997).
· cites it 2× “” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919 (Reissue 1989). For the purpose of this statute, a witness is anyone who has knowledge of a relevant fact or occurrence sufficient to testify in respect to it.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919(1) — 6 cases
Augustin Valenzuela Gallardo v. Loretta E. Lynch, 818 F.3d 808 (9th Cir. 2016).
“6 6 After Valenzuela Gallardo was issued in 2012, the Eighth Circuit similarly interpreted Espinoza-Gonzales to mean that a Nebraska witness- tampering statute ( Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919 (1)) is a crime “relating to obstruction of justice” for purposes of § 1101(a)(43)(S).”
State v. Bedford, 980 N.W.2d 451 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022).
“A defendant’s reasons for attempting to induce a witness to commit any of the acts enumerated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919 (1) (Cum. Supp. 2020) are not relevant.”
State v. Benson, 305 Neb. 949 (Neb. 2020).
“Benson was charged under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919 (1) (Reissue 2016), which provides, in relevant part: (1) A person commits the offense of tampering with a witness .”
State v. Cisneros, 535 N.W.2d 703 (Neb. 1995).
“§ 28-802 (Reissue 1989); and two counts of tampering with a witness, Neb. Rev.Stat. § 28-919 (Reissue 1989). Cisneros' case was set for trial on August 23, 1993.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Larkins, 755 N.W.2d 813 (Neb. 2008).
“01 to have an appellate court render an advisory opinion on narrow factual issues regardless of whether the opinion may, or may not, have some marginal precedential value in the future.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-919(3) — 2 cases
State v. Guzman, 305 Neb. 376 (Neb. 2020).
“was mentally or physically incapable of resisting or appraising the nature of her conduct.”
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.