Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1817 (2026)
Plea in bar; allegations; reply to plea; how issues tried
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The accused may then offer a plea in bar to the indictment that he has before had judgment of acquittal, or been convicted, or been pardoned for the same offense; and to this plea the county attorney may reply that there is no record of such acquittal or conviction, or that there has been no pardon. On the trial of such issue to the court or to a jury, if the court desires to submit such issue to a jury, the accused must produce the record of such conviction or acquittal, or the pardon, and prove that he is the same person charged in the record or mentioned in the pardon; and shall be permitted to adduce such other evidence as may be necessary to establish the identity of the offense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1986–2018 · leading case: State v. Williams, 774 N.W.2d 384 (Neb. 2009).
State v. Williams, 774 N.W.2d 384 (Neb. 2009). “Appellant's plea in bar does not meet requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1817 (Reissue 2008) and does not allege further prosecution barred by the double jeopardy clauses of the federal or state constitutions.”
State v. Milenkovich, 458 N.W.2d 747 (Neb. 1990). “The first issue we must address is whether this court has jurisdiction to hear an immediate appeal from an order overruling a plea in bar filed pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1817 (Reissue 1989).”
State v. Mata, 745 N.W.2d 229 (Neb. 2008). “The district court determined that the plea in bar statute, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1817 (Reissue 1995), only permits a defendant to file a plea in bar before entering a plea to the general issues.”
State v. Hansen, 542 N.W.2d 424 (Neb. 1996). “2d 747 (1990), this court said that there is no question that a determination of a nonfrivolous double jeopardy claim affects the substantial right not to be tried twice for the same offense and concluded that a denial of a plea in bar, filed pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1817…”
State v. Marshall, 690 N.W.2d 593 (Neb. 2005). “2d 659, 661 (2001), that this rule applies only to the denial of a “true plea in bar,” which we defined as one meeting the requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1817 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Irish, 391 N.W.2d 137 (Neb. 1986). “Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1817 (Reissue 1985), Irish filed a plea in bar.”
State v. Huff, 776 N.W.2d 498 (Neb. 2009). “[8] See, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1817 (Reissue 2008); State v.”
State v. Miner, 733 N.W.2d 891 (Neb. 2007). “22 See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1817 (Reissue 1995); State v.”
State v. Combs, 297 Neb. 422 (Neb. 2017). “He argues that he presented evidence that the jury voted to acquit him on three of the four counts, but that the jury did not enter a verdict of acquittal on those counts because it mistakenly thought it had to reach a unanimous verdict on all counts.”
State v. Kula, 579 N.W.2d 541 (Neb. 1998). “It is significant that in denying Kula’s motion for leave to withdraw his prior plea, the district court ruled on the merits of his contemporaneously filed plea in bar by making a specific finding that retrial would not constitute double jeopardy.”
State v. Rubio, 623 N.W.2d 659 (Neb. 2001). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1817 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Lynch, 533 N.W.2d 905 (Neb. 1995). “On the trial of such issue to the court or to a jury, if the court desires to submit such issue to a jury, the accused must produce the record of such conviction or acquittal, or the pardon, and prove that he is the same person charged in the record or mentioned in the pardon;…”
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.