If the court refuses a written instruction, as demanded, but gives the same with a modification, which the court may do, such modification shall not be by interlineation or erasure, but shall be well defined and shall follow some such characterizing words as "changed thus," which words shall themselves indicate that the same was refused as demanded.
§ 25-1112.Requested instruction; how modified.
Article 11: Trial · Last amended 1875 · Last verified July 22, 2026
In one sentenceThis section requires that when the court modifies a requested instruction instead of refusing it outright, the change must be clearly marked — not scribbled in or crossed out — typically with words like “changed thus,” so the record shows the instruction was not given exactly as requested.
Full Text of § 25-1112
Source
Laws 1875, § 2, p. 77; R.S.1913, § 7851; C.S.1922, § 8795; C.S.1929, § 20-1112; R.S.1943, § 25-1112.
Plain-English Summary
A judge does not always have to choose between giving a requested instruction word for word or refusing it entirely. Section 25-1112 covers the middle path: the court may give the instruction with a modification. When it does, the change cannot be made by interlineation or erasure — no writing between the lines, no crossing out the original text.
Instead, the modification has to be well defined, following characterizing words such as “changed thus,” language that itself signals the instruction was not given exactly as the party demanded. That formality creates a clean visual marker on the document itself, distinguishing the party’s original request from the court’s modified version.
The purpose is a reliable appellate record. If a party later argues the court erred in modifying an instruction, the record needs to show plainly what was asked for and what was given. Interlineations and erasures would blur that line; a clearly flagged modification preserves it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a judge change the wording of a party’s requested jury instruction?
Yes. Section 25-1112 allows the court to give a requested instruction with a modification rather than refusing it outright.
How must a modified instruction be marked on the page?
Clearly and without interlineation or erasure — the modification must be well defined, typically following characterizing words such as “changed thus.”
Why can’t the judge just cross out the old wording and write in new wording?
Because the section specifically bars modification by interlineation or erasure, to keep the original request and the court’s change from becoming blurred together on the document.
What does “changed thus” signify?
It is the characterizing language the section calls for — words that themselves indicate the instruction was refused as originally demanded and given only in modified form.
Does this affect a party’s ability to challenge the instruction later?
The clear marking this section requires is what preserves an accurate record of the modification, which matters if the modification is challenged on appeal.
Source & verification. Section text and the amendment-history citation are
reproduced verbatim from the Nebraska Legislature, Revisor of Statutes, enacted by the
Nebraska Legislature. Last verified July 22, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: modified jury instruction nebraska rulechanged thus jury instruction markinghow the court alters a requested instruction25-1112 nebraska statutemarking a modified jury instruction