60-420. Evidence generally affecting credibility. Subject to K.S.A. 60-421 and 60-422, for the purpose of impairing or supporting the credibility of a witness, any party including the party calling the witness may examine the witness and introduce extrinsic evidence concerning any conduct by him or her and any other matter relevant upon the issues of credibility.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-420; January 1, 1964.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Exceptions to exclusions of hearsay evidence, see 60-460.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Survey of law of evidence, Spencer A. Gard, 12 K.L.R. 239, 243 (1963).
Discussion of criminal procedure in state courts, Frank R. Gray, 34 J.B.A.K. 316, 320 (1965).
"Survey of Kansas Law; Evidence," Spencer A. Gard, 16 K.L.R. 125, 136 (1967).
"Benton v. Maryland: A Further Extension of the Rights of the Individual in Criminal Proceedings," 18 K.L.R. 309, 314 (1970).
"Evidence of Alcohol/Drug Intoxication and Usage," Randall Rathbun, 6 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 23 (1983).
"Expungement: Lies That Can Hurt You in and out of Court," Steven K. O'Hern, 27 W.L.J. 574, 578, 586, 589, 598 (1988).
"Trial Techniques in Persuasion in a Medical Malpractice Case," Bradley J. Prochaska, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XIX, No. 2, 8, 10 (1995).
"Introducing Evidence of Settlement in Multi-Defendant Medical Malpractice Cases," Tom Pickert, K.D.J. Fall, Issue II (2008).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. One's own witness can be cross-examined to test credibility. Taylor v. Maxwell, 197 Kan. 509, 512, 419 P.2d 822.
2. Admissibility of evidence of prior convictions hereunder for impeaching witness discussed. Tucker v. Lower, 200 Kan. 1, 3, 434 P.2d 320.
3. No error in permitting examination of hostile witnesses by leading questions. State v. Collins, 204 Kan. 55, 58, 460 P.2d 573.
4. Cited in holding evidence as to prior convictions of defendant admissible. State v. Burgess, 205 Kan. 224, 227, 468 P.2d 229.
5. Redirect examination to impair credibility of state's witness held proper. State v. Harden, 206 Kan. 365, 377, 480 P.2d 53.
6. In cross-examination of defendant's character witness, inquiry must be directed to the witness' "hearing" of disparaging rumor as negativing the reputation; no question as to "fact" of the misconduct permissible. State v. Hinton, 206 Kan. 500, 506, 507, 479 P.2d 910.
7. Section permits any party to examine a witness, including party who calls him, as to any conduct or matter relevant to issue of credibility. State v. Franklin, 206 Kan. 527, 528, 479 P.2d 848.
8. A witness may be examined by any party including the party who called him for purpose of affecting his credibility. State v. Armstrong, 207 Kan. 681, 687, 688, 486 P.2d 1322.
9. Former convictions admissible on issue of credibility. Munsell v. Ideal Food Stores, 208 Kan. 909, 928, 494 P.2d 1063.
10. No error in prosecution impeachment of state's witness called by the defendant; conviction upheld. State v. Scott, 210 Kan. 426, 433, 502 P.2d 753.
11. Aggravated robbery; hung jury; witness evaded process for second trial; testimony at first trial admitted; no error. State v. Ford, 210 Kan. 491, 502 P.2d 786.
12. Applied; allegations that rebuttal testimony of witness impeached other state testimony without merit. State v. Blocker, 211 Kan. 185, 191, 505 P.2d 1099.
13. Cited in determining drug offenses per se do not involve dishonesty or false statement; inadmissible under K.S.A. 60-421 as affecting credibility. State v. Belote, 213 Kan. 291, 295, 516 P.2d 159.
14. Applied; evidence of prior conviction of witness for purpose of impeachment upheld. State v. Laughlin, 216 Kan. 54, 56, 530 P.2d 1220.
15. Admission of evidence concerning success of state's witness in securing convictions in unrelated case held error. State v. Steger, 216 Kan. 534, 537, 532 P.2d 1115.
16. Applied; conviction of theft affirmed; no error in rulings on admission of evidence. State v. Norwood, 217 Kan. 150, 156, 535 P.2d 996.
17. Claim of self-incrimination held without merit; conflicting statements of defendants as to whereabouts at time of trial admissible. State v. Donahue, 218 Kan. 351, 353, 543 P.2d 962.
18. Exclusion of evidence as to prior convictions of a witness not reversible error. State v. Mahkuk, 220 Kan. 74, 77, 551 P.2d 869.
19. No abuse of discretion by trial court in determining extent and limitation on extrinsic evidence; tests. State v. Hall, 220 Kan. 712, 716, 556 P.2d 413.
20. K.S.A. 60-243(b) to be considered "in light of" this section. Manley v. Rings, 222 Kan. 258, 261, 564 P.2d 482.
21. Applied; testimony inadmissible; limitation on cross-examination proper. State v. Smallwood, 223 Kan. 320, 326, 574 P.2d 1361.
22. Prejudicial error in limiting rebuttal evidence on collateral issues; new trial ordered. State v. Nixon, 223 Kan. 788, 792, 576 P.2d 691.
23. Scope of state's rebuttal evidence reviewed; held court did not abuse discretion; conviction affirmed. State v. Thornton, 224 Kan. 127, 130, 577 P.2d 1190.
24. No abuse of discretion in admission of prior inconsistent statements of children; prosecution for second degree murder. State v. Farley, 225 Kan. 127, 131, 587 P.2d 337.
25. Conviction of aggravated robbery; testimony of rebuttal witnesses did not agree with victim's testimony but was properly admitted hereunder. State v. Taylor, 225 Kan. 788, 791, 594 P.2d 211.
26. Cross-examination of defendant as to termination of previous employment for impeachment purposes upheld. State v. Ramsey, 228 Kan. 127, 129, 612 P.2d 603.
27. If prior convictions involving dishonesty not mentioned on direct, state could not have cross-examined on LSD conviction. State v. Logan, 236 Kan. 79, 83, 689 P.2d 778 (1984).
28. Where impeachment questions and responses assumed improper, error harmless if substantial rights not prejudiced. Hagedorn v. Stormont-Vail Regional Med. Center, 238 Kan. 691, 700, 701, 715 P.2d 2 (1986).
29. Prejudicial to defendant for court to exclude evidence which put accomplice's credibility in doubt. State v. Davis, 237 Kan. 155, 160, 697 P.2d 1321 (1985).
30. Cited; evidence regarding competency of victim/witness to stand trial in 1963 proceeding as impeaching present credibility examined. State v. Hicks, 240 Kan. 302, 307, 729 P.2d 1146 (1986).
31. Reversible error in excluding testimony proffered by appellant for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a state's witness. State v. Macomber, 241 Kan. 154, 158, 734 P.2d 1148 (1987).
32. Unemployment benefit hearing transcripts as inadmissible at any proceeding except those enumerated (K.S.A. 44-714) examined. Batt v. Globe Engineering Co., 13 Kan. App. 2d 500, 502, 774 P.2d 371 (1989).
33. No limiting instruction requirement under K.S.A. 60-455 noted where statements of turncoat witness admissible hereunder. State v. Wilson, 247 Kan. 87, 795 P.2d 336 (1990).
34. Defendant's impeachment of state witness not limited to cross-examination. State v. Beans, 247 Kan. 343, 348, 800 P.2d 145 (1990).
35. Admission of evidence that defense witness shared jail cell with defendant, reason for being in jail examined. State v. Wesson, 247 Kan. 639, 651, 802 P.2d 574 (1990).
36. Noted in challenge to admission of facilitated communications process used by autistic child witness. State v. Warden, 257 Kan. 94, 113, 891 P.2d 1074 (1994).
37. Under facts, conviction of failure to appear may not be used to impeach credibility of witness. State v. Marble, 21 Kan. App. 2d 509, 516, 901 P.2d 521 (1995).
38. Trial court admission of testimony that witness had AIDS did not constitute reversible error. State v. Collier, 259 Kan. 346, 353, 913 P.2d 597 (1996).
39. Trial court error in excluding prior inconsistent statements of witness held harmless error. State v. Matson, 260 Kan. 366, 377, 921 P.2d 790 (1996).
40. Admission of letter to witness which was relevant to credibility and motive of witness not erroneous. State v. Green, 260 Kan. 471, 478, 920 P.2d 414 (1996).
41. Limiting cross-examination concerning diversion for theft to impeach witness character trait of veracity upheld. State v. Sanders, 263 Kan. 317, 319, 949 P.2d 1084 (1997).
42. Defendant's criminal history inadmissible as evidence of conviction of crime and as improper character evidence absent defendant's credibility being in issue by action of defendant. State v. Smith, 28 Kan. App. 2d 56, 11 P.3d 520 (2000).
43. Rebuttal evidence admissible under K.S.A. 60-420 to attack defendant's credibility. State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 250, 169 P.3d 1128 (2007).
44. Failure to admit certain evidence and limiting defense counsel's cross examination held reversible error. State v. Scott, 39 Kan. App. 2d 49, 56, 57, 59, 177 P.3d 972 (2008).
45. Witness credibility character evidence discussed; evidence of specific instances disallowed. State v. Penn, 41 Kan. App. 2d 251, 201 P.3d 752 (2009).
46. Evidence admitted that defendant watched pornographic movies with child; no error found; no objection at trial. State v. Gaona, 41 Kan. App. 2d 1064, 208 P.3d 308 (2009).
47. Court abused its discretion in excluding defendant's prior inconsistent statements. State v. Stinson, 43 Kan. App. 2d 468, 227 P.3d 11 (2010).
48. State used documents not admitted into evidence in the trial of sexually violent predator case; fair trial not provided. In re Care & Treatment of Ontiberos, 45 Kan. App. 2d 235, 247 P.3d 686 (2011).
49. District court's ruling limiting method of impeachment to rebuttal witnesses instead of cross-examination upheld. State v. Frantz, 316 Kan. 708, 729, 521 P.3d 1113 (2022).
|