Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 29
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2014 (2026)

Conspiracy; overt acts; allegations required; proof

✓ 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

In trials for conspiracy, in cases where an overt act is required by law to consummate the offense, no conviction shall be had unless one or more overt acts be expressly alleged in the indictment, nor unless one or more of the acts so alleged be proved on trial; but other overt acts not alleged in the indictment may be given in evidence on the part of the prosecution.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1957–2022 · leading case: State v. Theisen, 946 N.W.2d 677 (Neb. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Theisen, 946 N.W.2d 677 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 8× “Theisen assigns the amended information failed to sufficiently allege conspiracy to distribute or deliver hydrocodone and tramadol.”
State v. Marco, 432 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 1988). · cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2014 (Reissue 1985) provides: In trials for conspiracy, in cases where an overt act is required by law to consummate the offense, no conviction shall be had unless one or more overt acts be expressly alleged in the indictment, nor unless one or more of the…”
State v. Davis, 969 N.W.2d 861 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 2× “DAVIS conspiracy charge asserted that the defendant agreed with one or more other people that they would “‘harvest more than one pound of marijuana’” and that the defendant or one or more of the other alleged conspirators committed “‘an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy,…”
Beyl v. State, 85 N.W.2d 653 (Neb. 1957). · cites it 2× “” See, also, section 29-2014, R. R. S. 1943, which provides: “In trials for conspiracy, in cases where an overt act is required by law to consummate the offense, no conviction shall be had unless one or more overt acts be expressly alleged in the indictment, nor unless one or…”
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.