25-1141. Testimony; repetition of objections unnecessary.

Where an objection has once been made to the admission of testimony and overruled by the court it shall be unnecessary to repeat the same objection to further testimony of the same nature by the same witness in order to save the error, if any, in the ruling of the court whereby such testimony was received.

Source

Annotations

When a criminal defendant did not object to testimony that a witness saw him with a gun resembling the gun used in a driveby shooting, this section did not apply to preserve any error for appeal, even though the defendant had objected to similar testimony from other witnesses. State v. Castillas, 285 Neb. 174, 826 N.W.2d 255 (2013).

Where incompetent testimony is admitted, failure to object to substantially same incompetent testimony by another witness waives the error in admission of testimony of first witness. Shamburg v. Folkers, 187 Neb. 169, 188 N.W.2d 723 (1971).

Section has no application to testimony of same nature by other witnesses. Rakes v. State, 158 Neb. 55, 62 N.W.2d 273 (1954).

Where former objection was made and overruled it was unnecessary to repeat the same objection to the later testimony of the same nature by the same witness in order to save error, if any. In re House's Estate, 145 Neb. 866, 18 N.W.2d 500 (1945); Triplett v. Western Public Service Co., 129 Neb. 799, 263 N.W. 229 (1935).

If the question relates to the same identical transaction or conversation, and calls for testimony of the same nature, it is not necessary that the objection be repeated to save the error in the appellate court. In re Vanicek's Estate, 145 Neb. 531, 17 N.W.2d 477 (1945).

Objection to question as incompetent having been overruled, it is not necessary to repeat objection to other questions relating to the same subject. Zediker v. State, 114 Neb. 292, 207 N.W. 168 (1926); Daggett v. State, 114 Neb. 238, 206 N.W. 735 (1925).