Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Objecting party or privilege claimant must state exclusionary rule, "Highlights of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure (1963)," Spencer A. Gard, 2 W.L.J. 199, 201 (1962).

Mentioned as affecting K.S.A. 60-427 in "The Physician-Patient Privilege Under the New Code," Steven P. Flood, 33 J.B.A.K. 100 (1964).

Survey of law of evidence, Spencer A. Gard, 12 K.L.R. 239, 240 (1963).

Quoted and discussed with respect to husband-wife privilege, Ross R. Freeman, 6 W.L.J. 144, 155, 156 (1966).

Section cited as "keystone" of rules of evidence, Spencer A. Gard, 16 K.L.R. 125, 135 (1967).

Not to be construed so literally as to stifle judicial discretion, "Other Vices, Other Crimes: An Evidentiary Dilemma," M. C. Slough, 20 K.L.R. 411, 415, 429 (1972).

Comment concerning use of evidence of prior convictions, Wendell F. Cowan, Jr., 12 W.L.J. 111, 113 (1972).

"The Psychotherapists' Privilege," Craig Kennedy, 12 W.L.J. 297, 305 (1973).

"Other Vices, Other Crimes: K.S.A. 60-455 Revisited," M. C. Slough, 26 K.L.R. 161, 173 (1978).

Conspiracy law, 26 K.L.R. 571, 589 (1978).

"Impeaching Civil Verdicts: Juror Statements as Prejudicial Misconduct," James M. Concannon, 52 J.K.B.A. 201, 202 (1983).

"Evidence: Settlement Offers Not Relevant For Mitigating Punitive Damages," James B. Albertson, 23 W.L.J. 452, 457 (1984).

"The Psychologist-Patient Privilege: Time for a Change in Kansas, or is it all in our Heads?" Boyd Isherwood, 37 W.L.J. 659 (1998).

"Evidence for the family lawyer: Intrafamily wiretapping, the Fifth Amendment and other selected topics," Steve Leben, 68 J.K.B.A. No. 3, 24 (1999).

"The Kansas Joint-Defense Privilege: A Cigarette Smokescreen," Derek S. Casey, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXII, No. 6, 16, 18 (1999).

"An ounce of Prevention...," Robert W. Parnacott, 68 J.K.B.A. No. 10, 36 (1999).

"The Kansas Joint-Defense Privilege: A Cigarette Smokescreen," Derek S. Casey, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXII, No. 6, 16 (1999).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Driving under influence; "per se" violation. 85-133.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Preexisting disqualifications, privileges and other exclusionary rules abolished; evidence only requirement for admissibility hereunder; section limited by K.S.A. 60-417. State v. Poulos, 196 Kan. 253, 263, 411 P.2d 694.

2. Considered; "privilege" within meaning of discovery statutes is as it exists in law of evidence; statements made to claims adjuster not privileged. Alseike v. Miller, 196 Kan. 547, 558, 412 P.2d 1007.

3. Evidence not excluded because it is self-serving. Thompson v. Norman, 198 Kan. 436, 441, 424 P.2d 593.

4. Witness may testify as to purchase price of neighboring tracts of land in condemnation proceeding; section abolishes privileges and exclusionary rules. City of Wichita v. Jennings, 199 Kan. 621, 623, 625, 433 P.2d 351.

5. Applied; action to set aside transfer of property; findings supported by evidence. In re Estate of Carlson, 201 Kan. 635, 646, 443 P.2d 673.

6. Administrative officer cannot be questioned as to precise factual basis of his findings or conclusions, or as to the precise factual details which influenced his findings or conclusions. Burton v. Jones, 202 Kan. 435, 438, 449 P.2d 551.

7. Applied in testing reasonableness of ordinance under K.S.A. 12-712; evidence; burden of proof. Keeney v. City of Overland Park, 203 Kan. 389, 394, 454 P.2d 456.

8. Mentioned as being limited by K.S.A. 60-417. State v. Jones, 204 Kan. 719, 726, 466 P.2d 283.

9. Cited in discussing cross-examination of defendant's character witness; preliminary inquiry in absence of jury required, when. State v. Hinton, 206 Kan. 500, 508, 479 P.2d 910.

10. Mentioned in determining rights of condemner in eminent domain proceeding (dissenting opinion). City of Bonner Springs v. Coleman, 206 Kan. 689, 698, 481 P.2d 950.

11. All evidence admissible if relevant; abolishes prior exclusionary rules. State Highway Commission v. Lee, 207 Kan. 284, 290, 485 P.2d 310.

12. Provision that all relevant evidence is admissible does not extend an open invitation to irrelevance (dissenting opinion). State Highway Commission v. Lee, 207 Kan. 284, 313, 485 P.2d 310.

13. Evidence relating to membership in an organization held relevant to show concerted or group action. State v. Pierce, et al., 208 Kan. 19, 29, 490 P.2d 584.

14. Subsection (f) cited; evidence of past crimes held inadmissible as not within any exception to K.S.A. 60-455. State v. Davis, 213 Kan. 54, 56, 515 P.2d 802.

15. Applied; appellate review foreclosed; conviction of crimes upheld. State v. James, 217 Kan. 96, 98, 535 P.2d 991.

16. Defendant entitled to compulsory process to establish complainant's competency and to subpoena of his medical records. State v. Humphrey, 217 Kan. 352, 362, 537 P.2d 155.

17. Applied; contention of incompetency rejected; conflicting statements of defendant as to whereabouts admissible. State v. Donahue, 218 Kan. 351, 355, 543 P.2d 962.

18. Applied; trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding evidence; action on insurance policies proving coverage for uninsured motorists. Van Hoozer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 219 Kan. 595, 613, 549 P.2d 1354.

19. Applied; evidence of collateral facts in criminal prosecution sufficiently relevant; admissible; discretion. State v. Baker, 219 Kan. 854, 858, 549 P.2d 911.

20. Testimony of witness considered and held relevant; admissible. State v. Rueckert, 221 Kan. 727, 728, 738, 561 P.2d 850.

21. Evidence relevant; admissible. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Schropp, 222 Kan. 612, 624, 567 P.2d 1359.

22. Denial of motion to suppress testimony upheld; duty as witness understood. State v. Smallwood, 223 Kan. 320, 327, 574 P.2d 1361.

23. Applied; admission of evidence of physician violated physician-patient privilege; conviction under K.S.A. 8-1567 reversed. State v. George, 223 Kan. 507, 508, 575 P.2d 511.

24. Applied; confessions of codefendants were inconsistent; not hearsay; admissible. State v. White & Stewart, 225 Kan. 87, 95, 587 P.2d 1259.

25. Judgment reversed; trial court erred in not issuing bench warrant for a minor who was material witness. State v. Jones, 226 Kan. 503, 508, 601 P.2d 1135.

26. Conviction of second degree murder affirmed; all relevant evidence is admissible. State v. Egbert, 227 Kan. 266, 269, 606 P.2d 1022.

27. Subsections (d), (e), (f) mentioned in reversal of conviction for sale of marijuana where court refused to compel disclosure of informant's identity. State v. Knox, 4 Kan. App. 2d 87, 93, 603 P.2d 199.

28. Cited; monetary threshold under K.S.A. 40-3117; reasonableness and necessity of medical bills are jury questions. Cansler v. Harrington, 231 Kan. 66, 69, 643 P.2d 110 (1982).

29. Evidence that blood test failed to exclude alleged father as possible father not admissible in paternity action. State ex rel. Hausner v. Blackman, 7 Kan. App. 2d 693, 698, 648 P.2d 249 (1982).

30. Evidence of market value of gas considered in construing royalty clause in gas lease. Holmes v. Kewanee Oil Co., 233 Kan. 544, 552, 664 P.2d 1335 (1983).

31. Proffer of offer of settlement solely for limited purpose of mitigation for punitive damages was not relevant and not admissible. Ettus v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 233 Kan. 555, 567, 665 P.2d 730 (1983).

32. Subsection (f) cited in holding error to show benefits received by plaintiff from another source in wrongful death action. Allman v. Holleman, 233 Kan. 781, 788, 667 P.2d 296 (1983).

33. Witness not prohibited from testifying simply because of age. State v. Thrasher, 233 Kan. 1016, 1018, 666 P.2d 722 (1983).

34. State agency regulations cannot limit scope of discoverable matter. Wesley Medical Center v. Clark, 234 Kan. 13, 18, 19, 669 P.2d 209 (1983).

35. Nontestimonial statement in physician's office records not improperly excluded where made five years before automobile accident. Doty v. Wells, 9 Kan. App. 2d 378, 379, 380, 682 P.2d 672 (1984).

36. Cited in holding communication between spouses in presence of or overheard by others not privileged; privilege limited to communications seeking to transmit information. State v. Newman, 235 Kan. 29, 39, 680 P.2d 257 (1984).

37. Cited in holding blood test from arrested driver, taken under appropriate conditions, admissible in civil action. Divine v. Groshong, 235 Kan. 127, 130, 679 P.2d 700 (1984).

38. No abuse of discretion in admitting written contract for care of aged mother provided by child. In re Estate of Kreie, 235 Kan. 143, 149, 679 P.2d 712 (1984).

39. KCC chairman may relax rules of evidence when public interest served and facts more easily ascertained. In re Application of Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 9 Kan. App. 2d 525, 526, 539, 685 P.2d 304 (1984).

40. Evidence of nature of workers' compensation relationship and effect has no bearing on fault and allocation thereof. Anderson v. National Carriers, Inc., 10 Kan. App. 2d 203, 209, 695 P.2d 1293 (1985).

41. Introduction of alleged murder weapon in murder case (K.S.A. 21-3401) based on circumstantial evidence held proper. State v. Yarrington, 238 Kan. 141, 145, 708 P.2d 524 (1985).

42. Evidence of other crimes or civil wrongs (K.S.A. 60-455) states exception to general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible. State v. Perrigo, 10 Kan. App. 2d 651, 708 P.2d 987 (1985).

43. Cited; exclusion of inconsistent statement in newspaper article as hearsay examined. State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629, 637, 740 P.2d 559 (1987).

44. Cited; plaintiff's burden in product liability case where needle believed to be in loaf of bread examined. Hazelton v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 12 Kan. App. 2d 377, 385, 745 P.2d 309 (1987).

45. Cited; statutory requirement of competence to testify examined; finding witness unable or unwilling to abide by oath not permissible basis. Jones v. Bordman, 243 Kan. 444, 457, 759 P.2d 953 (1988).

46. Cited; qualification as witness of individual under age 21 who observed events while acting as police officer examined. State v. Winkel, 243 Kan. 570, 572, 757 P.2d 318 (1988).

47. Witness as presumed competent regardless of young age noted; establishing incompetency rests with challenger. State v. Colwell, 246 Kan. 382, 387, 790 P.2d 430 (1990).

48. Finding that child-victim was unavailable as a witness (K.S.A. 60-460) one year before trial as error determined. State v. McClanahan, 14 Kan. App. 2d 410, 792 P.2d 355 (1990).

49. 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).

50. Exclusion from jury room of evidence admitted at trial held harmless error. Morgan v. Abay, 252 Kan. 853, 857, 850 P.2d 840 (1993).

51. Whether conviction and sentencing of codefendant removed 5 th Amendment protection for codefendant's testimony in defendant's trial examined. State v. Johnson-Howell, 255 Kan. 928, 939, 881 P.2d 1288 (1994).

52. Whether judge used proper procedures to determine whether autistic witness using facilitated communication was validly communicating examined. State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 120, 891 P.2d 1074 (1994).

53. Whether admission of financial record exhibits was improper because inadequate foundation laid examined. Kampschroeder v. Kampschroeder, 20 Kan. App. 2d 361, 367, 887 P.2d 1152 (1995).

54. Probative value of photographs of deceased victim outweighed possible prejudice to defendant. State v. Hickles, 261 Kan. 74, 85, 929 P.2d 141 (1996).

55. Under facts, condemnor may amend eminent domain petition to correct incorrect legal description of landowner's easements. Landau Investment Co. v. City of Overland Park, 261 Kan. 394, 407, 930 P.2d 1065 (1997).

56. Probative value of victim's autopsy photographs outweighed prejudicial value. State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 477, 931 P.2d 664 (1997).

57. Rights, under constitutions of the United States and state of Kansas, of persons called as witnesses in inquisitions. In re Investigation into Homicide of T.H., 23 Kan. App. 2d 471, 474, 932 P.2d 1023 (1997).

58. Admission of relevant autopsy photographs were not prejudicial to rights of defendant. State v. Smallwood, 264 Kan. 69, 84, 955 P.2d 1209 (1998).

59. Evidence of defendant's conviction in previous trial for crimes related to charged crime properly excluded as irrelevant. State v. Mims, 264 Kan. 506, 512, 956 P.2d 1337 (1998).

60. No privilege against testifying in father-son relationship. Bond v. Albin, 29 Kan. App. 2d 262, 28 P.3d 394 (2000).

61. Failure of trial court to fully evaluate relevant evidence in order to determine admissibility of defendant's third-party evidence was reversible error. State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520, 533, 102 P.3d 445 (2004).

62. Witnesses testimony not relevant to proving victim's state of mind at time of death. State v. Baker, 281 Kan. 997, 1009, 135 P.3d 1098 (2006).

63. 911 recording captured defendant's demeanor at the time of the events, documented events and the duration of the incident, and was highly probative with respect to element of premeditation. State v. Reed, 282 Kan. 272, 282, 144 P.3d 677 (2006).

64. Evidence not relevant to material facts. State v. Gaither, 283 Kan. 671, 689, 156 P.3d 602 (2007).

65. Relevancy discussed; court has discretion to exclude relevant evidence outweighed by prejudicial effect. State v. Scott-Herring, 284 Kan. 172, 176, 159 P.3d 1028 (2007).

66. Unless prohibited by statute, constitution or court decision, all relevant evidence is admissible. City of Mission Hills v. Sexton, 284 Kan. 414, 429, 160 P.3d 812 (2007).

67. Eminent domain proceeding; all relevant evidence is admissible; exceptions. Miller v. Glacier Development Co., 284 Kan. 476, 486, 497, 161 P.3d 730 (2007).

68. Admissibility of photographs discussed; harmless error found in admitting certain photographs. State v. Miller, 284 Kan. 682, 690, 703, 163 P.3d 267 (2007).

69. Evidence of prior crimes permitted to show intent and identity in subsequent prosecution. State v. Garcia, 285 Kan. 1, 169 P.3d 1069 (2007).

70. Mentioned in case involving interlocutory appeal not authorized by K.S.A. 22-3603, speedy trial requirement violated; case dismissed. State v. Mitchell, 285 Kan. 1070, 1074, 179 P.3d 394 (2008).

71. Cited; alleged error in admitting evidence of drug use and addiction; no limiting instruction was error. State v. Carapezza, 286 Kan. 992, 997, 191 P.3d 256 (2008).

72. Cited; evidence of defendant's drug use found probative of motive; lack of limiting instruction erroneous but harmless. State v. Hughes, 286 Kan. 1010, 1020, 191 P.3d 268 (2008).

73. Evidence found to be too remote and no connection between evidence and alleged criminal act. State v. Huntley, 39 Kan. App. 2d 180, 191, 177 P.3d 994 (2008).

74. When adequacy of the legal basis for district court's decision at issue, de novo standard applies. State v. Smith, 39 Kan. App. 2d 204, 213, 178 P.3d 672 (2008).

75. Mentioned; police dispatch description of suspect from anonymous caller not offered to prove truth of matter, not hearsay. State v. Barney, 39 Kan. App. 2d 540, 545, 185 P.3d 277 (2008).

76. No error in admitting criminal history evidence in commitment proceeding under the Kansas sexually violent predator act. In re Care and Treatment of Colt, 39 Kan. App. 2d 643, 648, 183 P.3d 4 (2008).

77. Cited; no error in admitting evidence of sex crimes in sentencing proceeding; evidence relevant to fiduciary relationship. State v. Horn, 40 Kan. App. 2d 687, 699, 196 P.3d 379 (2008).

78. No error in admission of evidence of prior bad acts or photos of victim. State v. Riojas, 288 Kan. 379, 204 P.3d 578 (2009).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov