Nebraska Statutes
§ 25-1210 — Witnesses; answer subjecting to criminal liability; disgracing answer; privilege
Nebraska § 25-1210
JurisdictionNebraska
Ch. 25Courts; Civil Procedure
This text of Nebraska § 25-1210 (Witnesses; answer subjecting to criminal liability; disgracing answer; privilege) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1210 (2026).
Text
When the matter sought to be elicited would tend to render the witness criminally liable or to expose him or her to public ignominy, the witness is not compelled to answer, except as provided in section 27-609 .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
In Re Interest of Clifford M.
577 N.W.2d 547 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 1998)
State v. Ellis
303 N.W.2d 741 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1981)
John R. Ellis v. Charles Black
732 F.2d 650 (Eighth Circuit, 1984)
In re Interest of Vladimir G.
306 Neb. 127 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2020)
Ritchey v. Ritchey
302 N.W.2d 372 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1981)
In re Interest of Kelsey B.
(Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2017)
State ex rel. Cooper v. Harmon
512 N.W.2d 656 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 1994)
Legislative History
Source: R.S.1867, Code § 337, p. 450; R.S.1913, § 7902; C.S.1922, § 8844; C.S.1929, § 20-1210; R.S.1943, § 25-1210; Laws 2003, LB 19, § 2.
Cross References: For privilege of immunity in proceeding for discovery of property, see section 25-1567.
Annotations: The public ignominy privilege provided in this section cannot be asserted by a witness in a criminal case. State v. Riensche, 283 Neb. 820, 812 N.W.2d 293 (2012). In dissolution action, trial court's ruling allowing wife to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination was supported by this section. Ritchey v. Ritchey, 208 Neb. 100, 302 N.W.2d 372 (1981). In determining whether the testimony of a witness who had pleaded guilty to a similar charge but had not been sentenced, who invoked the privilege of self-incrimination during cross-examination may be used against the defendant, a distinction must be drawn between cases in which the assertion of the privilege merely precludes inquiry into collateral matters which bear only on the creditability of the witness and those cases in which the assertion of the privilege prevents inquiry into matters about which the witness testified on direct examination. State v. Bittner, 188 Neb. 298, 196 N.W.2d 186 (1972). Privilege of refusing to answer may be asserted at time witness is confronted with question or interrogatory. State ex rel. Beck v. Lush, 168 Neb. 367, 95 N.W.2d 695 (1959). Privilege of witness to refuse to answer on ground answer may tend to incriminate him or expose him to public ignominy must be timely made or it will be deemed to have been waived. State ex rel. Wright v. Barlow, 132 Neb. 166, 271 N.W. 282 (1937). Questions tending to incriminate or expose witness to public ignominy were improper. Pricer v. Lincoln Gas & Elec. Co., 111 Neb. 209, 196 N.W. 150 (1923). If witness testified to part, he waives privilege as to whole transaction. Lombard v. Mayberry, 24 Neb. 674, 40 N.W. 271 (1888).
Nearby Sections
15
§ 25-1001
Attachment; grounds§ 25-1006
Attachment; order; return day§ 25-101
Civil action§ 25-1012
Repealed. Laws 1980, LB 597, § 18§ 25-1012.01
Garnishment; public officers and employeesCite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Nebraska § 25-1210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ne/25-1210.