Source or prior law:

L. 1909, ch. 182, § 581; R.S. 1923, 60-3317.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Formal objections to rulings or orders unnecessary, see 60-246.

New trial grounds, see 60-259(a).

Jury instructions, see 60-251.

Appellate jurisdiction, see 60-2101(b).

Similar provisions applicable to courts exercising appellate jurisdiction, see 60-2105.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence," Vicki Kelly Brittain, 15 W.L.J. 176, 178 (1976).

"Bench Decisions and Opinion Writing," Robert H. Miller, 47 J.B.A.K. 247 (1978).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Criminal Law and Procedure," Keith G. Meyer, 27 K.L.R. 391, 427 (1979).

"Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument," Alan V. Johnson and Jeffrey S. Southard, 49 J.B.A.K. 205, 243, 245 (1980).

"Kansas Appellate Advocacy: An Inside View of Common-Sense Strategy," Patrick Hughes, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 2, 26 (1997).

"Prosecutorial Misconduct in Kansas: Still Hazy After All These Years," Hon. Robert L. Gernon, 41 W.L.J. 245, 249 (2002).

"Lurching Toward the Light: Alternative Means and Multiple Acts Law in Kansas," Carol A. Beier, 44 W.L.J. 275 (2005).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-3317 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.

1. Failure to make conclusions of fact separate from conclusions of law; no reversal unless substantial rights affected. Cain v. Grosshans & Petersen, Inc., 192 Kan. 474, 478, 389 P.2d 839.

2. Court order made contrary to statute not mere technical error. Gardner v. Pereboom, 194 Kan. 231, 235, 398 P.2d 293.

3. Failure to comply precisely with K.S.A. 60-248(e) did not affect substantial rights of party. Canfield v. Oberzan, 196 Kan. 107, 117, 410 P.2d 339.

4. Section applied; action for damages. Lightcap v. Mettling, 196 Kan. 124, 128, 409 P.2d 792.

5. Section applied; statement of counsel referring to evidence afterwards excluded. Miller v. Braun, 196 Kan. 313, 318, 411 P.2d 621.

6. Independent investigation and false answers on voir dire examination by juror; misconduct of counsel in closing argument; new trial granted. Walker v. Holiday Lanes, 196 Kan. 513, 516, 413 P.2d 63.

7. Nothing presumed in aid of special findings, and every reasonable presumption indulged in favor of general verdict; special questions and answers thereto erroneous, but did not affect substantial rights of parties. Harbaugh v. Darr, 200 Kan. 610, 617, 438 P.2d 74.

8. Cited in reference to discussion of admission of certain evidence pertaining to possession, payment of rents and notice to vacate. Guy Pine, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 201 Kan. 371, 374, 440 P.2d 595.

9. Trial court should disregard any error or defect in trial not affecting defendant's substantial rights. State v. Taylor, 202 Kan. 202, 208, 447 P.2d 806.

10. Failure to object may preclude consideration of claim in federal habeas corpus proceeding if done deliberately as part of defense strategy. Mize v. Crouse, 399 F.2d 593, 594.

11. Mentioned in reference to absence of counsel at pre-trial identification. State v. Sanders, 202 Kan. 551, 554, 451 P.2d 148.

12. Appellants' failure to incorporate exhibit into record makes determination of prejudicial error impossible. Jacks v. Cloughley, 203 Kan. 699, 704, 457 P.2d 175.

13. In action under K.S.A. 21-1617 and 21-424 failure to advise defendant of right to appointed counsel held harmless error. State v. Fleury, 203 Kan. 888, 893, 457 P.2d 44.

14. Evidence of prior conviction held harmless error. State v. O'Neal, 204 Kan. 226, 231, 461 P.2d 801.

15. No contemporaneous objection offered to restrict scope of evidence; held to be harmless error. Scogin v. Nugen, 204 Kan. 568, 578, 464 P.2d 166.

16. Trial errors not prejudicial to substantial rights of either party; law does not guarantee a "perfect" trial, but it does guarantee a "fair" trial. Schneider v. Washington National Ins. Co., 204 Kan. 809, 815, 465 P.2d 932.

17. Cited in case involving false arrest and malicious prosecution. Thompson v. General Finance Co., Inc., 205 Kan. 76, 101, 468 P.2d 269.

18. Mentioned in applying contemporaneous objection rule. Jensen v. Jensen, 205 Kan. 465, 467, 470 P.2d 829.

19. Mentioned in determining rights of condemner in eminent domain proceeding (dissenting opinion). City of Bonner Springs v. Coleman, 206 Kan. 689, 700, 481 P.2d 950.

20. Held that errors of case fell within the section and are not prejudicial. State v. Armstrong, 207 Kan. 681, 690, 486 P.2d 1322.

21. Mentioned; no error shown in admitting or restricting evidence or giving or refusing instructions or failing to clarify questions. Staudinger v. Sooner Pipe & Supply Corporation, 208 Kan. 101, 110, 490 P.2d 619.

22. Cited; new trial denied where record does not show substantial rights affected. Hibler v. Nordyke, 212 Kan. 619, 620, 512 P.2d 485.

23. Applied; no error in permitting use of blackboard drawing in criminal prosecution. State v. Winston, 214 Kan. 525, 530, 520 P.2d 1204.

24. Applied; ruling on cross-examination in criminal case nonprejudicial error. State v. Wheeler, 215 Kan. 94, 100, 523 P.2d 722.

25. Applied; admission of subsequent conviction in prosecution for aggravated battery and assault erroneous but harmless error. State v. Bly, 215 Kan. 168, 178, 523 P.2d 397.

26. Applied; action for fraud and breach of oral contract; statute of limitations; evidence. Wolf v. Brungardt, 215 Kan. 272, 285, 524 P.2d 726.

27. Applied; admission of certain exhibits in specialty newspaper in prosecution for perjury; not reversible error. State v. Craig, 215 Kan. 381, 384, 524 P.2d 679.

28. Aggravated robbery conviction; error to admit evidence of prior conviction to impair credibility. State v. Harris, 215 Kan. 649, 652, 527 P.2d 949.

29. Applied; exclusion of evidence of communications relevant to issue in debt harassment case not harmless. Dawson v. Associates Financial Services Co., 215 Kan. 814, 823, 824, 529 P.2d 104.

30. Error by trial court in admission of prior convictions harmless error; conviction affirmed. State v. Watkins, 219 Kan. 81, 94, 547 P.2d 810.

31. Erroneous admission of blood test results obtained without consent prejudicial; conviction under K.S.A. 8-530 reversed. State v. Gordon, 219 Kan. 643, 652, 653, 549 P.2d 886.

32. Erroneous admission of prior convictions constituted prejudice; not harmless error. State v. Donnelson, 219 Kan. 772, 775, 549 P.2d 964.

33. Applied; conviction of welfare fraud affirmed. State v. Ambler, 220 Kan. 560, 564, 552 P.2d 896.

34. Applied; admission of prior conviction of rape did not amount to a denial of substantial justice; harmless error. State v. Yates, 220 Kan. 635, 637, 556 P.2d 176.

35. Evidence of probation officer's card of defendant did not affect constitutional rights; harmless error. State v. Wilson & Wentworth, 221 Kan. 359, 364, 559 P.2d 374.

36. Admission of deposition; no harmless error. Stremel v. Sterling, 1 Kan. App. 2d 310, 312, 564 P.2d 559.

37. Testimony cumulative; admission of evidence not error. State v. Mantz, 222 Kan. 453, 460, 565 P.2d 612.

38. Harmless error rule applied; trial to court not jury. State v. Dodson, 222 Kan. 519, 524, 565 P.2d 291.

39. Admission of evidence of other crimes to show plan did not constitute reversible error. State v. Gourley, 224 Kan. 167, 171, 578 P.2d 713.

40. Letter mistakenly included in trial exhibits delivered to jury held harmless error; judgment affirmed. State v. McClain, 224 Kan. 464, 580 P.2d 1334.

41. Applied; admission of evidence of prior conviction on issue of identity not prejudicial although not admissible to show plan. State v. McBarron, 224 Kan. 710, 713, 585 P.2d 1041.

42. Admission of photographs of victim held harmless error. State v. Dargatz, 228 Kan. 322, 329, 614 P.2d 430.

43. Under K.S.A. 60-225, substitution for deceased litigant whose appeal is pending must be made within reasonable time or appeal will be dismissed. Long v. Riggs, 5 Kan. App. 2d 416, 417, 617 P.2d 1270.

44. Final sentence in instruction erroneous but error held harmless when instruction entirely viewed. English Village Properties, Inc. v. Boettcher & Lieurance Constr. Co., 7 Kan. App. 2d 307, 314, 640 P.2d 1280 (1982).

45. Failure of judge to find controlling facts in action tried without a jury held not prejudicial to defendant. Panhandle Agri-Service, Inc. v. Becker, 231 Kan. 291, 296, 644 P.2d 413 (1982).

46. Failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 168 is grounds for new trial on issue covered in closing argument. Doty v. Wells, 9 Kan. App. 2d 378, 382, 383, 682 P.2d 672 (1984).

47. Defendant is precluded from claiming error was committed by admission of evidence when defendant inserted such evidence and proceeded in a manner requiring trial court to admit same. McGuire v. Sifers, 235 Kan. 368, 372, 681 P.2d 1025 (1984).

48. Error in ordering production of plaintiff's statement to his lawyer and use at trial did not affect substantial rights. Girrens v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 238 Kan. 670, 680, 715 P.2d 389 (1986).

49. Erroneous admission of evidence examined; no substantial rights of parties shown to be affected. State v. Walker, 239 Kan. 635, 644, 722 P.2d 556 (1986).

50. Cited; errors committed balanced against defendant's rights examined to determine if substantial rights affected. State v. Ruebke, 240 Kan. 493, 518, 731 P.2d 842 (1987).

51. Cited; statement of fact contrary to evidence in closing argument where overwhelming evidence indicated crime examined. State v. Chism, 243 Kan. 484, 493, 759 P.2d 105 (1988).

52. Statements improperly admitted not grounds for reversal unless inconsistent with substantial justice. State v. Young, 14 Kan. App. 2d 21, 36, 784 P.2d 366 (1989).

53. Seven-week trial with 6,000 pages of transcript and extensive related documents as revealing only harmless error noted. Leiker v. Gafford, 245 Kan. 325, 366, 778 P.2d 823 (1989).

54. While admitting evidence of defendant's parole status may be error (K.S.A. 60-455), only reversible when denial of substantial justice occurs. State v. Hartfield, 245 Kan. 431, 440, 781 P.2d 1050 (1989).

55. Error not affecting substantial rights as not grounds for disturbing judgment unless inconsistent with substantial justice examined. State v. Damewood, 245 Kan. 676, 684, 783 P.2d 1249 (1989).

56. Substantial injustice done in requiring defense council to accept state's offer to stipulate to qualifications of pathology expert. State v. Colwell, 246 Kan. 382, 386, 387, 790 P.2d 430 (1990).

57. Exclusion of testimony held harmless error. Marshall v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., 249 Kan. 620, 625, 822 P.2d 591 (1991).

58. Prejudicial error as to excluded testimony. State v. Getz, 250 Kan. 560, 569, 830 P.2d 5 (1992).

59. Under circumstances, absence of pretrial hearing on admissibility of prior crimes evidence (K.S.A. 60-455) at best harmless. State v. Maggard, 16 Kan. App. 2d 743, 753, 829 P.2d 591 (1992).

60. Admissibility of prior convictions evidence and opinion testimony on profile of drug traffickers in civil forfeiture action (K.S.A. 65-4135) examined. State v. 1978 Chevrolet Automobile, 17 Kan. App. 2d 144, 154, 835 P.2d 1376 (1992).

61. Whether exclusion of evidence affected party's substantial rights on issue of punitive damages examined. Smith v. Printup, 254 Kan. 315, 347, 866 P.2d 985 (1994).

62. Whether discretion abused by allowing depositions of third parties in a debt execution proceeding examined. City of Arkansas City v. Anderson, 19 Kan. App. 2d 344, 348, 869 P.2d 244 (1994).

63. Whether court's rescheduling sentencing prejudiced defendant's substantial rights examined. State v. Borders, 255 Kan. 871, 881, 883, 879 P.2d 620 (1994).

64. Whether evidence defendant was represented on unrelated charges was relevant to impeach interrogator's credibility examined. State v. Morris, 255 Kan. 964, 983, 880 P.2d 1244 (1994).

65. Whether court erred by admitting photographs showing unused safety devices at accident scene taken two years after accident examined. Smith v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 256 Kan. 90, 122, 883 P.2d 1120 (1994).

66. When court's rulings restricting testimony of contacts between defendant and victim deprived defendant of fair trial examined. State v. Ricks, 257 Kan. 435, 440, 894 P.2d 191 (1995).

67. Trial court's failure to give instruction limiting use of prior crimes evidence held harmless error. State v. Denney, 258 Kan. 437, 444, 905 P.2d 657 (1995).

68. Defendant waives right to allocution if defendant files a motion to modify which fails to raise allocution issue. State v. Bowen, 259 Kan. 798, 806, 915 P.2d 120 (1996).

69. Admission of irrelevant evidence concerning murder victim intended to inflame jury constituted reversible error. State v. Donesay, 265 Kan. 60, 85, 959 P.2d 862 (1998).

70. Admission of tape recordings without proper foundation violated defendant's right to confront witness and constituted reversible error. State v. Brockenshire, 26 Kan. App. 2d 902, 912, 995 P.2d 905 (2000).

71. Harmless error to include term "deception" in kidnapping charge where victim was threatened with pistol. State v. Johnson, 27 Kan. App. 2d 921, 11 P.3d 67 (2000).

72. Trial error must affect substantial rights of defendant before new trial will be declared. State v. Graham, 272 Kan. 2, 30 P.3d 310 (2001).

73. Murder of ex-husband by abused woman affirmed; harmless error and federal constitutional error considered. State v. Leitner, 272 Kan. 398, 34 P.3d 42 (2001).

74. Prosecutor's statement that "premeditation can occur in an instant" is reversible error despite lack of objection. State v. Holmes, 272 Kan. 491, 33 P.3d 856 (2001).

75. No prejudicial error under cumulative effect rule as evidence is overwhelming against defendant. State v. Villanueva, 29 Kan. App. 2d 1056, 35 P.3d 936 (2001).

76. Error in admission or exclusion of evidence not grounds for setting aside verdict unless such action would be inconsistent with substantial justice. State v. Hobbs, 276 Kan. 45, 71 P.3d 1140 (2003).

77. Trial court's error in admission or exclusion of evidence is not grounds for new trial unless inconsistent with substantial justice. State v. Kesselring, 279 Kan. 671, 112 P.3d 175 (2005).

78. Federal harmless error rule applied in Confrontation Clause violations. State v. Nguyen, 281 Kan. 702, 718, 133 P.3d 1259 (2006).

79. Admission of photographs merely confirmed defendant's voluntary and damaging statement. State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227, 1245, 136 P.3d 919 (2006).

80. Erroneous admission of testimony regarding a prior bad act was not harmless where the State relied solely on that evidence for conviction. State v. Horton, 283 Kan. 44, 55, 151 P.3d 9 (2007).

81. Erroneous admission of evidence is subject to the harmless error rule. State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 65, 159 P.3d 985 (2007).

82. Mentioned in opinion discussing multiple acts case requiring jury unanimity on specific criminal acts. State v. Voyles, 284 Kan. 239, 251, 160 P.3d 794 (2007).

83. Cited; alleged prosecutorial misconduct harmless error. State v. Carter, 284 Kan. 312, 327, 160 P.3d 457 (2007).

84. Prosecution misconduct; factors for court to consider when determining if conduct constitutes error requiring reversal. State v. White, 284 Kan. 333, 161 P.3d 208 (2007).

85. Unless inconsistent with substantial justice, evidential evidence error not grounds for new trial. City of Mission Hills v. Sexton, 284 Kan. 414, 434, 160 P.3d 812 (2007).

86. No error is grounds for new trial unless refusal appears inconsistent with substantial justice. State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 252, 255, 169 P.3d 1128 (2007).

87. Under K.S.A. 60-261 error in admission of evidence not grounds for reversal unless inconsistent with substantial justice. State v. Brown, 285 Kan. 261, 296, 173 P.3d 612 (2007).

88. Court discusses two-step analysis of alleged prosecutorial misconduct; harmless error test of K.S.A. 60-261 discussed and applied. State v. Morton, 38 Kan. App. 2d 967, 968, 973, 174 P.3d 904 (2008).

89. Harmlessness standards are satisfied from both K.S.A. 60-211 and Chapman v. California that error had little to change results of trial. State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 709, 175 P.3d 861 (2008).

90. Cited; refusal to grant new trial based on prejudicial remarks of prosecutor not inconsistent with substantial justice. State v. Scott, 286 Kan. 54, 85, 183 P.3d 801 (2008).

91. Cited; prosecutor's closing arguments erroneous, gross and flagrant but held to be harmless error under K.S.A. 60-261. State v. Crum, 286 Kan. 145, 155, 184 P.3d 222 (2008).

92. Cited; evidence of prior crimes and civil wrongs improperly admitted; harmless error. State v. Warledo, 286 Kan. 927, 943, 949, 190 P.3d 937 (2008).

93. Cited; admission of expert testimony on drug addiction held abuse of discretion; conviction reversed. State v. Carapezza, 286 Kan. 992, 1005, 1008, 1009, 191 P.3d 256 (2008).

94. Cited; district court abused discretion in admitting expert testimony regarding behavior of people addicted to crack cocaine; new trial. State v. Hughes, 286 Kan. 1010, 1027, 1031, 191 P.3d 268 (2008).

95. Cited; no reversible error in allowing state to play recorded statement after witness excused. State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 286, 287, 197 P.3d 337 (2008).

96. Cited; prior use of marijuana evidence held improper to prove intent to possess under facts of case. State v. Boggs, 287 Kan. 298, 318, 319, 197 P.3d 441 (2008).

97. Prosecutor's misconduct was not harmless; convictions reversed. State v. Bloomquist, 39 Kan. App. 2d 101, 113, 178 P.3d 42 (2008).

98. Cited; error in admitting evidence of prior bad acts to prove intent, absence of mistake or accident and plan. State v. Prine, 287 Kan. 713, 736, 200 P.3d 1 (2009).

99. Prosecutor misconduct and improper ruling on sequestering witnesses grounds for new trial. State v. Brinklow, 288 Kan. 39, 200 P.3d 1225 (2009).

100. Prosecutor's alleged improper inference of guilt held proper. State v. McReynolds, 288 Kan. 318, 202 P.3d 658 (2009).

101. Purported misconduct held to be harmless under K.S.A. 60-261. State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252, 213 P.3d 728 (2009).

102. District court erred in admitting other crime evidence; admission of such evidence harmless error. State v. Ventris, 289 Kan. 314, 212 P.3d 162 (2009).

103. Challenge to the admission of certain evidence not upheld; evidence not unduly prejudicial. State v. Ransom, 289 Kan. 373, 212 P.3d 203 (2009).

104. Prosecutor error in repeatedly asking objectionable questions held harmless. State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 212 P.3d 165 (2009).

105. No prosecutorial misconduct found to have prejudiced defendant's right to fair trial. State v. Krider, 41 Kan. App. 2d 368, 202 P.3d 722 (2009).

106. Jury's question to trial court; judge's response was erroneous; conviction reversed. State v. Jones, 41 Kan. App. 2d 714, 205 P.3d 779 (2009).

107. Error in omission of defendant's age in charging document harmless error and did not preclude retrial on more serious off-grid version of the offense. State v. Kemble, 291 Kan. 109, 238 P.3d 251 (2010).

108. Harmless error rule applied; no reversal of conviction. State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 235 P.3d 436 (2010).

109. Harmless error analysis used for erroneous admission of evidence under K.S.A. 60-455. State v. Brown, 44 Kan. App. 2d. 344, 236 P.3d 551 (2010).

110. Harmless error analysis made for erroneous admission of rebuttal evidence. State v. Sitlington, 291 Kan. 458, 241 P.3d 1003 (2010).

111. Trial court's error in allowing cross-examination of rape defendant as to whether right to remain silent had been invoked was not harmless where verdict rested on whether the jury believed defendant's testimony that sex between defendant and alleged minor was consensual, defendant's credibility had been impacted, and error had a reasonable probability of contributing to the verdict. State v. Tully, 293 Kan. 176, 262 P.3d 314 (2011).

112. Defendant's illegal use of a controlled substance is not automatically admissible; error not harmless. State v. Preston, 294 Kan. 27, 272 P.3d 1275 (2012).

113. Admission of plan evidence improper; error held not harmless. State v. Torres, 294 Kan. 135, 273 P.3d 729 (2012).

114. Harmless error standard of review shows no prejudice. State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012).

115. Statutory harmless error standard is used in a context of violation of evidentiary limitations. State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 277 P.3d 1111 (2012).

116. Statutory harmless error standard is used in a context of violation of evidentiary limitations. State v. Gilliland, 294 Kan. 519, 276 P.3d 165 (2012).

117. The party benefiting from the error must show there is no reasonable probability the error affected the trial's outcome in light of the entire record. State v. Huffmier, 297 Kan. 306, 301 P.3d 669 (2013).

118. If court determines constitutional error is reversible, no need to analyze lower standard for harmlessness when error arises from same acts. State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989, 306 P.3d 244 (2013); State v. Friday, 297 Kan. 1023, 306 P.3d 265 (2013); State v. Ochs, 297 Kan. 1094, 306 P.3d 294 (2013).

119. The erroneous exclusion of evidence is subject to review under the harmless error test. State v. Burnett, 300 Kan. 419, 434, 329 P.3d 1169 (2014).

120. Denying defendant's request for personal copies of discovery was a harmless error where defendant was not restricted from viewing the documents with counsel. State v. Willis, 51 Kan. App. 2d 971, 982, 358 P.3d 107 (2015).

121. When considering a motion for mistrial, after determining there was not a fundamental failure that infringed upon a right guaranteed by the United States constitution, a court should apply harmless error and technical and inadvertent error statutes to determine if there is a reasonable probability that the error will or did affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record. State v. Logsdon, 304 Kan. 3, 38-40, 371 P.3d 836 (2016).

122. When both constitutional and nonconstitutional errors clearly arise from the same acts and omissions, an appellate court begins with a harmlessness analysis of the constitutional error; if the constitutional error is reversible, an appellate court need not analyze whether the lower standard for harmlessness has also been met. State v. Charles, 304 Kan. 158, 173, 372 P.3d 1109 (2016).

123. If the constitutional harmless error test is met, the statutory test will also be met. State v. Fisher, 304 Kan. 242, 251, 373 P.3d 781 (2016).

124. Even if discussion of parol evidence was uninvited error, the error was harmless where it did not affect the petitioner's substantial rights. Water Dist. No. 1 of Johnson Co. v. Prairie Center Dev., 304 Kan. 603, 618, 375 P.3d 304 (2016).

125. To determine if a nonconstitutional error makes it impossible to proceed with the trial without injustice and requires a mistrial, a court must assess whether the fundamental failure affected a party's substantial rights under K.S.A. 60-231 and K.S.A. 60-2105. State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 731, 374 P.3d 654 (2016).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov