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

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2522 (2026)

Sentence; considerations; determination; contents

✓ 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

The panel of judges for the sentencing determination proceeding shall either unanimously fix the sentence at death or, if the sentence of death was not unanimously agreed upon by the panel, fix the sentence at life imprisonment. Such sentence determination shall be based upon the following considerations:

(1) Whether the aggravating circumstances as determined to exist justify imposition of a sentence of death;

(2) Whether sufficient mitigating circumstances exist which approach or exceed the weight given to the aggravating circumstances; or

(3) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.

In each case, the determination of the panel of judges shall be in writing and refer to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances weighed in the determination of the panel.

If an order is entered sentencing the defendant to death, a date for execution shall not be fixed until after the conclusion of the appeal provided for by section 29-2525.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case: State v. Bjorklund, 604 N.W.2d 169 (Neb. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Bjorklund, 604 N.W.2d 169 (Neb. 2000). · cites it 12× “(8) The trial court erred in not conducting a fair comparative review, mandatory under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2522 (3) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Gales, 694 N.W.2d 124 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “See § 29-2522; L.B. 1, § 14. These determinations cannot increase the potential punishment to which a defendant is exposed as a consequence of the eligibility determination.”
State v. Galindo, 774 N.W.2d 190 (Neb. 2009). · cites it 8× “Section 29-2522, which listed the judge or three-judge panel as the fact finder for aggravating circumstances, was separate and severable from the remaining statutes pertaining to the death penalty scheme.”
State v. Galindo, 994 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 13× “In a pretrial motion to quash, Galindo’s counsel argued there was no enforceable death penalty at the time the crimes were committed, after Ring and prior to L.B.”
State v. Palmer, 399 N.W.2d 706 (Neb. 1986). · cites it 10× “Neb.Rev. Stat. § 29-2522 (Reissue 1985). A second step, however, was added to the Supreme Court's review procedure in 1978 when the Legislature adopted L.”
State v. Dunster, 631 N.W.2d 879 (Neb. 2001). · cites it 7× “See, also, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2522 (Reissue *346 1995).”
State v. Gales, 658 N.W.2d 604 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 5× “Section 29-2522 provided: After hearing all of the evidence and arguments in the sentencing proceeding, the judge or judges shall fix the sentence at either death or life imprisonment, but such determination shall be based upon the following considerations: (1) Whether…”
State v. Lotter, 586 N.W.2d 591 (Neb. 1998). · cites it 6× “The sentencing panel interpreted and applied §§ 29-2522 and 29-2521 regarding the burden of proof on aggravating factors and the risk of nonproduction and risk of nonpersuasion regarding mitigating circumstances and acted without standards with which to determine if a sentence…”
State v. Jenkins, 931 N.W.2d 851 (Neb. 2019). · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2520 (3) (Cum. Supp.”
State v. Trail, 981 N.W.2d 269 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 5× “STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] A denial of a motion to sever will not be reversed unless clear prejudice and an abuse of discretion are shown, and an appellate court will find such an abuse only where the denial caused the defendant substantial prejudice amounting to a miscarriage of…”
State v. Garcia, 994 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 2023). · cites it 3× “We explained in Lotter that isolated references in Hurst to the sentencing scheme’s requirement that the court find there were insufficient mitigating circumstances to outweigh the aggravating circumstances did not mean that the Supreme Court had held the jury rather than a…”
State v. Moore, 553 N.W.2d 120 (Neb. 1996). · cites it 9× “” Moore maintains that this provision conflicts with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2522 (Reissue 1995), which states: After hearing all of the evidence and arguments in the sentencing proceeding, the judge or judges shall fix the sentence at either death or life imprisonment, but such…”
Show all 60 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2522(1): 1 case
State v. Galindo, 994 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2023). “In a pretrial motion to quash, Galindo’s counsel argued there was no enforceable death penalty at the time the crimes were committed, after Ring and prior to L.B.”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2522(2): 4 cases
State v. Galindo, 994 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2023). “In a pretrial motion to quash, Galindo’s counsel argued there was no enforceable death penalty at the time the crimes were committed, after Ring and prior to L.B.”
Moore v. Kinney, 119 F. Supp. 2d 1022 (D. Neb. 2000).
State v. Moore, 553 N.W.2d 120 (Neb. 1996). “” Moore maintains that this provision conflicts with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2522 (Reissue 1995), which states: After hearing all of the evidence and arguments in the sentencing proceeding, the judge or judges shall fix the sentence at either death or life imprisonment, but such…”
Reeves v. Hopkins, 871 F. Supp. 1182 (D. Neb. 1994).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2522(3): 11 cases
State v. Bjorklund, 604 N.W.2d 169 (Neb. 2000). “(8) The trial court erred in not conducting a fair comparative review, mandatory under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2522 (3) (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Galindo, 774 N.W.2d 190 (Neb. 2009). “Section 29-2522, which listed the judge or three-judge panel as the fact finder for aggravating circumstances, was separate and severable from the remaining statutes pertaining to the death penalty scheme.”
State v. Galindo, 994 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. 2023). “In a pretrial motion to quash, Galindo’s counsel argued there was no enforceable death penalty at the time the crimes were committed, after Ring and prior to L.B.”
State v. Lotter, 586 N.W.2d 591 (Neb. 1998). “The sentencing panel interpreted and applied §§ 29-2522 and 29-2521 regarding the burden of proof on aggravating factors and the risk of nonproduction and risk of nonpersuasion regarding mitigating circumstances and acted without standards with which to determine if a sentence…”
State v. Palmer, 399 N.W.2d 706 (Neb. 1986). “Neb.Rev. Stat. § 29-2522 (Reissue 1985). A second step, however, was added to the Supreme Court's review procedure in 1978 when the Legislature adopted L.”
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.