Except as provided in section 29-2525 for cases when the punishment is capital, in all criminal cases when a defendant feels aggrieved by any opinion or decision of the court, he or she may order a bill of exceptions. The ordering, preparing, signing, filing, correcting, and amending of the bill of exceptions shall be governed by the rules established in such matters in civil cases.

Source:G.S.1873, c. 58, § 482, p. 829; R.S.1913, § 9123; C.S.1922, § 10148; C.S.1929, § 29-2020; R.S.1943, § 29-2020; Laws 1959, c. 120, § 1, p. 452; Laws 1961, c. 135, § 2, p. 390; Laws 1990, LB 829, § 1; Laws 2015, LB268, § 17; Referendum 2016, No. 426.
Note: The changes made to section 29-2020 by Laws 2015, LB 268, section 17, have been omitted because of the vote on the referendum at the November 2016 general election.

Annotations

Preparation of bill of exceptions in criminal case is governed by rules governing a civil case. Benedict v. State, 166 Neb. 295, 89 N.W.2d 82 (1958).

Sufficient exceptions were taken by convicted defendant to warrant consideration of alleged errors committed at trial. Scott v. State, 121 Neb. 232, 236 N.W. 608 (1931).

Affidavits for continuance will not be considered by appellate court unless embodied in bill of exceptions. Hans v. State, 50 Neb. 150, 69 N.W. 838 (1897).

Facts of which there is no evidence or recitation in bill of exceptions, will be disregarded in Supreme Court. McCall v. State, 47 Neb. 660, 66 N.W. 635 (1896).

In capital case, want of exception will not necessarily deprive prisoner of right to new trial for prejudicial errors of court. Schlencker v. State, 9 Neb. 300, 2 N.W. 710 (1879).

Arguments of counsel on questions raised during trial and remarks of court in deciding them serve no useful place in bill of exceptions and should be omitted. Clough v. State, 7 Neb. 320 (1878).

Prisoner tried for felony is entitled to new trial on ground of prejudicial erroneous instruction, even though no objection was taken thereto. Thompson v. People, 4 Neb. 524 (1876).