60-405. Effect of erroneous exclusion of evidence. A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless it appears of record that the proponent of the evidence either made known the substance of the evidence in a form and by a method approved by the judge, or indicated the substance of the expected evidence by questions indicating the desired answers.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-405; January 1, 1964.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Objections," Laurence Rose, 2 J.K.T.L.A. No. 3, 18, 19 (1978).
"Motion in Limine," Laurence Rose, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 17, 18 (1980).
"Survey of Kansas Law: Evidence," Mark M. Dobson, 32 K.L.R. 625 (1984).
"Warning: Failure to Counter an Objection may be Hazardous to Your Case," Vol. IX, No. 2, J.K.T.L.A. 23 (1985).
"Recent Decisions Affecting the Trial of Cases," Ruth M. Benien, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVI, No. 3, 18, 19 (1993).
Survey of Recent Cases, 43 K.L.R. 999 (1995).
"An ounce of Prevention...," Robert W. Parnacott, 68 J.K.B.A. No. 10, 36 (1999).
"Preserving the Record in Criminal Law Cases—The Offer of Proof," Stephen M. Joseph, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXIII, No. 2, 16 (1999).
"The First Line of Defense: A Practitioner's Guide to Motions in Limine," William J. Pauzauskie, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXIV, No. 3, 8 (2001).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Mentioned in upholding the exclusion of proffered evidence in first degree robbery trial. State v. Henderson, 205 Kan. 231, 239, 468 P.2d 136.
2. Cited in reversing conviction of county attorney for criminal contempt. In re Sanborn, 208 Kan. 4, 14, 490 P.2d 598.
3. Applied; no effort made to make known substance of evidence expected to be presented. Salem v. Salem, 214 Kan. 828, 832, 522 P.2d 336.
4. 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, 529 P.2d 104.
5. Failure to comply with section and K.S.A. 60-243(c); appellate review on excluded evidence not authorized. State v. Nix, 215 Kan. 880, 884, 529 P.2d 147.
6. Error to exclude reputation and character evidence on issue of aggressor; damage action for assault and battery. Carrick v. McFadden, 216 Kan. 683, 687, 688, 533 P.2d 1249.
7. Ruling excluding evidence not reviewable unless substance of evidence made known. Querry v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 217 Kan. 104, 112, 535 P.2d 928.
8. Mentioned in upholding trial court's denial of motion regarding results of polygraph examination. State v. Watkins, 219 Kan. 81, 85, 547 P.2d 810.
9. Substantial competent evidence; verdict not overturned. Baker v. Ratzlaff, 1 Kan. App. 2d 285, 289, 564 P.2d 153.
10. Cited in regard to the effect of erroneous exclusion of evidence. Manley v. Rings, 222 Kan. 258, 262, 564 P.2d 482.
11. Exclusion of evidence of independent crime not error; murder conviction affirmed. State v. Nemechek, 223 Kan. 766, 770, 576 P.2d 682.
12. Applied in affirming trial court's sustaining of immateriality objection. Henderson v. Hassur, 225 Kan. 678, 691, 594 P.2d 650.
13. Applied; substance of evidence made known to trial court; appeal preserved. State v. Quick, 226 Kan. 308, 314, 597 P.2d 1108.
14. Cited; no error by trial court in excluding testimony not relevant in securities fraud case. State v. Puckett, 6 Kan. App. 2d 688, 695, 634 P.2d 144 (1981).
15. Testimony of expert witness; nurse would be an expert on bedsores. Mellies v. National Heritage, Inc., 6 Kan. App. 2d 910, 920, 636 P.2d 215 (1981).
16. Not applicable to appeal based on denial of standing to participate in juvenile transfer hearing. In re Shelton, 8 Kan. App. 2d 226, 231, 654 P.2d 487 (1982).
17. When appellant did not make proffer of excluded evidence during trial, no irreversible error in such exclusion. Kearney v. Kansas Public Service Co., 233 Kan. 492, 499, 665 P.2d 757 (1983).
18. Error to exclude evidence of prior carelessness of defendant's employee when offered to show negligence in supervision. McGraw v. Sanders Co. Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 233 Kan. 766, 770, 667 P.2d 289 (1983).
19. Cited; violation of sequestration order without knowledge or connivance of defendant insufficient reason to exclude alibi witness. State v. Hill, 10 Kan. App. 2d 607, 609, 706 P.2d 472 (1985).
20. When trial court rules expert testimony is inadmissible, it is error to refuse a proffer of that testimony into the record. State v. Hodges, 241 Kan. 183, 192, 734 P.2d 1161 (1987).
21. Hearing, evidence and findings necessary to support admissibility of hearsay statements under K.S.A. 60-460(dd) examined. In re M.O., 13 Kan. App. 2d 381, 383, 770 P.2d 856 (1989).
22. Applicability of rape shield statute (K.S.A. 21-3525) where record does not show what actual testimony would be examined. State v. Gonzales, 245 Kan. 691, 699, 783 P.2d 1239 (1989).
23. Exclusion of relevant evidence as error rather than abuse of discretion stated in concurring opinion. State v. Osby, 246 Kan. 621, 633, 793 P.2d 243 (1990).
24. Limitations on evidence of defendant's drug use examined. State v. Hall, 246 Kan. 728, 746, 793 P.2d 737 (1990).
25. Standard for satisfactory proffer of evidence. Marshall v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., 249 Kan. 620, 623, 822 P.2d 591 (1991).
26. Exclusion of evidence; complaining party must have proffered the excluded evidence. Enlow v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 249 Kan. 732, 733, 741, 822 P.2d 617 (1991).
27. Cited; admission of documents not previously disclosed is discretionary with trial court. New Dimensions Products, Inc. v. Flambeau Corp., 17 Kan. App. 2d 852, 861, 844 P.2d 768 (1993).
28. Trial court's refusal to allow testimony of three unendorsed defense witnesses examined. State v. Coleman, 253 Kan. 335, 344, 856 P.2d 121 (1993).
29. Cited; whether defendant was denied right of confrontation when court restricted defense cross-examination of rebuttal witness examined. State v. Coleman, 19 Kan. App. 2d 412, 416, 870 P.2d 695 (1994).
30. Whether defendant asserting lack of opportunity to present mitigation evidence before sentencing made proffer of contemplated evidence examined. State v. Borders, 255 Kan. 871, 880, 879 P.2d 620 (1994).
31. Whether prejudice to defendant's substantial rights must be shown to constitute reversible error for allocution violations examined. State v. Duke, 256 Kan. 703, 727, 887 P.2d 110 (1994).
32. Whether judge's limitations on defendant's testimony violated defendant's right to present a defense examined. State v. Gibbons, 256 Kan. 951, 959, 889 P.2d 772 (1995).
33. Trial judge's threat of holding defense counsel in contempt not so prejudicial as to require new trial. State v. Sherrer, 259 Kan. 332, 338, 912 P.2d 747 (1996).
34. Trial court's denial of allocution not so prejudicial as to require reversal. State v. Bowen, 259 Kan. 798, 806, 915 P.2d 120 (1996).
35. Cited; failure to make a proffer of excluded evidence precludes appellate review. State v. Horn, 40 Kan. App. 2d 687, 706, 196 P.3d 379 (2008).
36. Errors in limine and evidentiary rulings and orders affected the outcome of the trial and denied substantial justice for a party. National Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Surety Co., 290 Kan. 247, 225 P.3d 707 (2010).
37. Exclusion of evidence on victim's family viewing inappropriate websites not error. State v. Garza, 290 Kan. 1021, 236 P.3d 501 (2010).
38. No formal offer of proof in the form of questions and answers is required. In re Acquisition of Property by Eminent Domain, 299 Kan. 37, 320 P.3d 955 (2014).
39. District court implicitly approved the form and method of counsel's informal colloquy during trial, but the proffer was not sufficient to enable appellate review. State v. Pepper, 317 Kan. 770, 786, 539 P.3d 203 (2023).
|
|