(1) When a defendant is charged with a felony or when a defendant is charged with a misdemeanor or a violation of a city or village ordinance for which imprisonment is a possible penalty, he or she may request the court where the case is to be tried, at any time after the filing of the indictment, information, or complaint, to order the prosecuting attorney to permit the defendant to inspect and copy or photograph:
(a) The defendant's statement, if any. For purposes of this subdivision, statement includes any of the following which relate to the investigation of the underlying charge or charges in the case and which were developed or received by law enforcement agencies:
(i) Written or recorded statements;
(ii) Written summaries of oral statements; and
(iii) The substance of oral statements;
(b) The defendant's prior criminal record, if any;
(c) The defendant's recorded testimony before a grand jury;
(d) The names and addresses of witnesses on whose evidence the charge is based;
(e) The results and reports, in any form, of physical or mental examinations, and of scientific tests, or experiments made in connection with the particular case, or copies thereof;
(f) Documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or other tangible things of whatsoever kind or nature which could be used as evidence by the prosecuting authority; and
(g) Reports developed or received by law enforcement agencies when such reports directly relate to the investigation of the underlying charge or charges in the case.
(2) The court may issue such an order pursuant to this section. In the exercise of its judicial discretion, the court shall consider, among other things, whether:
(a) The request is material to the preparation of the defense;
(b) The request is not made primarily for the purpose of harassing the prosecution or its witnesses;
(c) The request, if granted, would not unreasonably delay the trial of the offense and an earlier request by the defendant could not have reasonably been made;
(d) There is no substantial likelihood that the request, if granted, would preclude a just determination of the issues at the trial of the offense; or
(e) The request, if granted, would not result in the possibility of bodily harm to, or coercion of, witnesses.
(3) Whenever the court refuses to grant an order pursuant to the provisions of this section, it shall render its findings in writing together with the facts upon which the findings are based.
(4) Whenever the prosecuting attorney believes that the granting of an order under the provisions of this section will result in the possibility of bodily harm to witnesses or that witnesses will be coerced, the court may permit him or her to make such a showing in the form of a written statement to be inspected by the court alone. The statement shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court to be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal by the defendant.
(5) This section is subject to the continuing duty of disclosure under section 29-1918.
(6) This section does not apply to jailhouse informants as defined in section 29-4701. Sections 29-4701 to 29-4706 govern jailhouse informants.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
86
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case:
State v. Parnell, 883 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. 2016).
State v. Parnell, 883 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 21× “An expert’s oral, unrecorded opinions do not fall within the scope of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 (1)(e) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Lotter, 586 N.W.2d 591 (Neb. 1998).
· cites it 26× “The prosecutors committed repeated acts of prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, in violation of Lotter's rights to a fair trial and sentencing under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1912 et seq. (Reissue 1995); Neb.”
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 7× “The principal and broader discovery statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 (1)(e) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Case, 304 Neb. 829 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 11× “If a continuance would have been a sufficient remedy for a belated disclosure in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 (Reissue 2016), a defendant who fails to request a continuance waives any rights he or she may have had pursu- ant to § 29-1912.”
State v. Smith, 292 Neb. 434 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 8× “If a continuance would have been a sufficient remedy for a belated disclo- sure in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 (Reissue 2008), a defend ant who fails to request a continuance waives any rights he or she may have had pursuant to § 29-1912.”
State v. Turner, 998 N.W.2d 783 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 10× “If a continuance would have been a sufficient remedy for a belated disclosure in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 (Cum. Supp. 2022), a defendant who fails to request a continuance waives any rights he or she may have had pursu- ant to § 29-1912.”
State v. Ramos, 319 Neb. 511 (Neb. 2025).
· cites it 19× “Motion for Mistrial; Alternative Motion for Continuance (a) Background In January 2018, prior to the first trial, Ramos requested, among other discovery materials, “[e]vidence of activities of co-defendants or accomplices” and “[a]ny and all state- ments made available to the…”
State v. Harris, 640 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2002).
· cites it 6× “Cass authored a police report regarding the December 10, 1996, interview with Harris.”
State v. Figures, 308 Neb. 801 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 4× “The district court found that Figures failed to prove that his trial counsel was incompetent.”
State v. Schmidt, 562 N.W.2d 859 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 11× “§ 29-1912 (Reissue 1995) was filed on this same date.”
State v. Williams, 26 Neb. Ct. App. 459 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 6× “Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-1912 and 29-1913 (Reissue 2016) set forth specific categories of information possessed by the State which are discoverable by a defendant.”
State v. Gutierrez, 726 N.W.2d 542 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 4× “, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-1912 and 29-1919 (Reissue 1995).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(1) — 9 cases
State v. Parnell, 883 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. 2016).
“An expert’s oral, unrecorded opinions do not fall within the scope of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 (1)(e) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Ramos, 319 Neb. 511 (Neb. 2025).
“Motion for Mistrial; Alternative Motion for Continuance (a) Background In January 2018, prior to the first trial, Ramos requested, among other discovery materials, “[e]vidence of activities of co-defendants or accomplices” and “[a]ny and all state- ments made available to the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(1)(e) — 6 cases
State v. Parnell, 883 N.W.2d 652 (Neb. 2016).
“An expert’s oral, unrecorded opinions do not fall within the scope of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 (1)(e) (Cum. Supp.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(1)(g) — 2 cases
State v. Ramos, 319 Neb. 511 (Neb. 2025).
“Motion for Mistrial; Alternative Motion for Continuance (a) Background In January 2018, prior to the first trial, Ramos requested, among other discovery materials, “[e]vidence of activities of co-defendants or accomplices” and “[a]ny and all state- ments made available to the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(2) — 3 cases
State v. Henry, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Neb. 2016).
“The principal and broader discovery statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912 (1)(e) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Ramos, 319 Neb. 511 (Neb. 2025).
“Motion for Mistrial; Alternative Motion for Continuance (a) Background In January 2018, prior to the first trial, Ramos requested, among other discovery materials, “[e]vidence of activities of co-defendants or accomplices” and “[a]ny and all state- ments made available to the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(2)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Ramos, 319 Neb. 511 (Neb. 2025).
“Motion for Mistrial; Alternative Motion for Continuance (a) Background In January 2018, prior to the first trial, Ramos requested, among other discovery materials, “[e]vidence of activities of co-defendants or accomplices” and “[a]ny and all state- ments made available to the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(3) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(4) — 3 cases
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(e) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(f) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1912(l)(f) — 1 case
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.