27-607. Rule 607. Who may impeach.
317 words·~1 min read·
/ne/chapter-27/27-607A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling him.
Under this section, the credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness. A party may not, however, use the rule as an artifice for putting before the jury substantive evidence that is otherwise inadmissible. But evidence of a witness' bias, however, is substantive evidence that a party can present on direct or cross-examination. State v. Iromuanya, 282 Neb. 798, 806 N.W.2d 404 (2011).
Although under this section "(t)he credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling him (or her)," a party may not use a prior inconsistent statement of a witness under the guise of impeachment for the primary purpose of placing before the jury substantive evidence which is not otherwise admissible. State v. Boppre, 243 Neb. 908, 503 N.W.2d 526 (1993).
A party does not vouch for the credibility of its witness. State v. Joy, 220 Neb. 535, 371 N.W.2d 113 (1985).
The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party who called the witness. State v. Marco, 220 Neb. 96, 368 N.W.2d 470 (1985).
The rule allowing a party to impeach his own witness may not be used as an artifice by which inadmissible matter may be gotten to the jury through the device of offering a witness whose testimony is or should be known to be adverse in order, under the name of impeachment, to get before the jury for its consideration a favorable ex parte statement the witness had made. State v. Brehmer, 211 Neb. 29, 317 N.W.2d 885 (1982).
Where the need for impeachment is small or nonexistent and the danger that the prior inconsistent statement will be considered substantively is great, the statement should be excluded. State v. Price, 202 Neb. 308, 275 N.W.2d 82 (1979).