(1) Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and: (a) In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if a specific ground was not apparent from the context; or (b) In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the judge by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. (2) The judge may add any other or further statement which shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. He may direct the making of an offer in question and answer form. (3) In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury. (4) Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of plain errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the judge.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103
Rule 103. Rulings on evidence; effect of erroneous ruling; objection; offer of proof; record of offer and ruling; hearing of jury; plain error
Applied in 125 court decisions — leading case State v. Copple (1987)
Most recently applied in Helzer Farms v. Allington (March 2026)
Laws 1975, LB 279, § 3.
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
Official source: Nebraska Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Nebraska statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.