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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (2026)

New trial; grounds

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A new trial, after a verdict of conviction, may be granted, on the application of the defendant, for any of the following grounds affecting materially his or her substantial rights: (1) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court, of the prosecuting attorney, or of the witnesses for the state or in any order of the court or abuse of discretion by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial; (2) misconduct of the jury, of the prosecuting attorney, or of the witnesses for the state; (3) accident or surprise which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against; (4) the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence or is contrary to law; (5) newly discovered evidence material for the defendant which he or she could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial; (6) newly discovered exculpatory DNA or similar forensic testing evidence obtained under the DNA Testing Act; or (7) error of law occurring at the trial.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 136 cases (41 in the last 5 years), 1935–2026 · leading case: State v. Bronson, 672 N.W.2d 244 (Neb. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bronson, 672 N.W.2d 244 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 32× “On March 11, 2003, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (6) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Cross, 297 Neb. 154 (Neb. 2017). · cites it 16× “Cross filed a motion for new trial, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016), claiming newly discovered evidence.”
State v. Buckman, 675 N.W.2d 372 (Neb. 2004). · cites it 11× “An evidentiary hearing was held following DNA testing of certain forensic evidence from Buckman’s trial, but the district court denied Buckman’s motion to vacate and set aside his convictions, brought under § 29-4123(2), and his motion for new trial based on newly discovered…”
State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 24× “Evidence newly created after trial does not satisfy Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Boppre, 995 N.W.2d 28 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 23× “If a motion for new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (Reissue 2016) is not supported by the required evidence in the required form, a district court need not consider it further and may deny the motion without an eviden- tiary hearing.”
State v. McSwine, 292 Neb. 565 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 11× “In effect, the majority concludes that a trial court has no inherent duty or statutory duty under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (1) (Reissue 2008) to consider whether plain error from prosecutorial misconduct occurred during a trial.”
State v. Avina-Murillo, 301 Neb. 185 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 5× “6 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2101 and 29-2103 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Harris, 307 Neb. 237 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 19× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Oldson, 884 N.W.2d 10 (Neb. 2016). · cites it 3× “148 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (Reissue 2008) provides that a new trial may be granted for any of the following grounds affecting materially the defendant’s substantial rights: (1) irregularity in the proceedings which prevented the defendant from having a fair trial; (2)…”
State v. Hill, 308 Neb. 511 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 19× “” He referred to the new trial statutes, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2101 through 29-2103 (Reissue 2016), and stated that the statutes allow a defendant to bring a motion for new trial based upon newly discovered evidence within 5 years of the date of the verdict.”
State v. Blocher, 986 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 15× “A court must determine whether the evidence presented, including valid stipulations of fact, satisfies the defendant’s burden under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Allen, 301 Neb. 560 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “The court found the proper course would have been to file a motion for new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016) rather than to pursue postconviction relief.”
Show all 136 citing cases →
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(1) — 17 cases
State v. Avina-Murillo, 301 Neb. 185 (Neb. 2018). “6 See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2101 and 29-2103 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. McSwine, 292 Neb. 565 (Neb. 2016). “In effect, the majority concludes that a trial court has no inherent duty or statutory duty under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (1) (Reissue 2008) to consider whether plain error from prosecutorial misconduct occurred during a trial.”
State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169 (Neb. 2021). “Evidence newly created after trial does not satisfy Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Cross, 297 Neb. 154 (Neb. 2017). “Cross filed a motion for new trial, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016), claiming newly discovered evidence.”
State v. Madren, 308 Neb. 443 (Neb. 2021).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(2) — 4 cases
State v. Madren, 308 Neb. 443 (Neb. 2021).
State v. Standiford (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Ottens (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
State v. Honken (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(3) — 3 cases
State v. Standiford (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Wabashaw (Neb. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Honken (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(4) — 4 cases
State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169 (Neb. 2021). “Evidence newly created after trial does not satisfy Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Wabashaw (Neb. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Farley (Neb. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Alvarado (Neb. Ct. App. 2014).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(5) — 34 cases
State v. Bartel, 308 Neb. 169 (Neb. 2021). “Evidence newly created after trial does not satisfy Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Cross, 297 Neb. 154 (Neb. 2017). “Cross filed a motion for new trial, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016), claiming newly discovered evidence.”
State v. Harris, 307 Neb. 237 (Neb. 2020). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Blocher, 986 N.W.2d 275 (Neb. 2023). “A court must determine whether the evidence presented, including valid stipulations of fact, satisfies the defendant’s burden under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Boppre, 995 N.W.2d 28 (Neb. 2023). “If a motion for new trial under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (Reissue 2016) is not supported by the required evidence in the required form, a district court need not consider it further and may deny the motion without an eviden- tiary hearing.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(6) — 9 cases
State v. Bronson, 672 N.W.2d 244 (Neb. 2003). “On March 11, 2003, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (6) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Harris, 307 Neb. 237 (Neb. 2020). “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101 (5) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Buckman, 675 N.W.2d 372 (Neb. 2004). “An evidentiary hearing was held following DNA testing of certain forensic evidence from Buckman’s trial, but the district court denied Buckman’s motion to vacate and set aside his convictions, brought under § 29-4123(2), and his motion for new trial based on newly discovered…”
State v. El-Tabech, 696 N.W.2d 445 (Neb. 2005).
State v. Robbins, 297 Neb. 503 (Neb. 2017).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2101(7) — 1 case
State v. Alvarado (Neb. Ct. App. 2014).
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.