KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

  

Home >> Statutes >> Back


Click to open printable format in new window.Printable Format
 | Next

60-445. Discretion of judge to exclude admissible evidence. Except as in this article otherwise provided, the judge may in his or her discretion exclude evidence if he or she finds that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk that its admission will unfairly and harmfully surprise a party who has not had reasonable opportunity to anticipate that such evidence would be offered.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-445; January 1, 1964.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Legislature changed portions of Judicial Council's draft of section, "Highlights of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure (1963)," Spencer A. Gard, 2 W.L.J. 199, 213 (1962).

Survey of law of evidence, Spencer A. Gard, 12 K.L.R. 239, 254 (1963).

Cited with reference to admitting evidence of mental state, M. C. Slough, 13 K.L.R. 197, 208 (1964).

Legislative emphasis on surprise should not preclude judge's discretion rejecting relevant evidence when substantial danger of prejudice, confusion of issues, or undue consumption of time, "Other Vices, Other Crimes: An Evidentiary Dilemma," M. C. Slough, 20 K.L.R. 411, 428, 429 (1972).

The legal effect of jury answers to special verdict questions under Kansas comparative negligence law, David E. Pierce, 16 W.L.J. 114, 122, 123 (1976).

"Hearsay Explaining Police Actions: The Proper Objection," Russell M. Coombs, 46 J.B.A.K. 157, 160, 166 (1977).

"Other Vices, Other Crimes: K.S.A. 60-455 Revisited," M. C. Slough, 26 K.L.R. 161, 164, 172, 173 (1978).

"Evidence of Other Crimes in Kansas," Randall K. Rathbun and Chad M. Renn, 17 W.L.J. 98, 99 (1977).

"Motion in Limine: A Mandatory Pre-Trial Motion in Civil Litigation," Mark Hutton, 4 J.K.T.L.A. No. 5, 9 (1981).

"Evidence of Alcohol/Drug Intoxication and Usage," Randall Rathbun, 6 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 23, 24 (1983).

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

"Kansas Recognizes Rape Trauma Syndrome," Charles H. Herd, 24 W.L.J. 653, 656 (1985).

"Kansas' Sexual Predator Act and the Impact of Expert Predictions: Psyched Out by the Daubert Test," Clayton C. Skaggs, 34 W.L.J. 320, 339 (1995).

"Res Gestae Raises Its Ugly Head," Dennis D. Prater and Virginia M. Klemme, 65 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 24 (1996).

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

"Other Misconduct Evidence," Christopher M. Joseph, 49 K.L.R. 145 (2000).

"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).

"A Criminal Defendant's Inability to Sue His Lawyer for Malpractice: The Other Side of the Exoneration Rule [Canaan v. Bartee, 72 P.3d 911 (Kan. 2003)]," Amy L. Leisinger, 44 W.L.J. 693 (2005).

"Turning a Blind Eye to Justice: Kansas Courts Must Integrate Scientific Research Regarding Eyewitness Testimony into the Courtroom," Bethany Shelton, 56 K.L.R. 949 (2008).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

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

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

3. Evidence of prior rapes admissible as relevant to charge of forcible rape; no element of surprise. State v. Masqua, 210 K. 419, 422, 423, 502 P.2d 728.

4. Cited; evidence of past crime; probative value must outweigh prejudicial effect even though evidence relevant. State v. Davis, 213 K. 54, 57, 59, 515 P.2d 802.

5. No error in admission into evidence of ring worn by defendant. State v. Lora, 213 K. 184, 193, 515 P.2d 1086.

6. Evidence admitted bearing evidence of another crime not error. State v. Winston, 214 K. 525, 529, 520 P.2d 1204.

7. Section mentioned in discussion of the admission of a prior conviction pursuant to 60-455. State v. Cross, 216 K. 511, 518, 532 P.2d 1357.

8. 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 K. 595, 613, 549 P.2d 1354.

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

10. Applied; admission of journal entry of previous conviction upheld; no abuse of discretion. State v. Faulkner, 220 K. 153, 158, 159, 551 P.2d 1247.

11. Admission of certain evidence pertaining to prior civil wrongs held proper. Hubin v. Shira, 1 K.A.2d 203, 204, 208, 209, 563 P.2d 1079.

12. Exclusion of medical records from hospital in attractive nuisance action upheld. Talley v. J & L Oil Co., 224 K. 214, 220, 579 P.2d 706.

13. No error in court's failure to exclude evidence hereunder where connection of the evidence to accused and crime is well established. State v. Nicholson, 225 K. 418, 420, 590 P.2d 1069.

14. Motion in limine discussed in detail; guidelines for use spelled out. State v. Quick, 226 K. 308, 311, 597 P.2d 1108.

15. Conviction of second degree murder affirmed; trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence. State v. Egbert, 227 K. 266, 270, 606 P.2d 1022.

16. No abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to admit evidence the probative value of which was outweighed by chance of prejudicing jury. Schaeffer v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 227 K. 509, 518, 608 P.2d 1309.

17. Trial judge does have discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by unfair and harmful surprise. State v. Reynolds, 230 K. 532, 536, 639 P.2d 461 (1982).

18. Trial judge in murder case did not abuse discretion in admitting testimony concerning a bruise mark on the murder victim. State v. Costello, 231 K. 337, 339, 342, 343, 644 P.2d 447 (1982).

19. No abuse of discretion to exclude evidence where chance of prejudicing jury outweighs probative value. Powers v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 234 K. 89, 101, 671 P.2d 491 (1983).

20. Probative value of opinion testimony by attorney for state's witness outweighed prejudicial effect. State v. Richard, 235 K. 355, 362, 681 P.2d 612 (1984).

21. Statement in physician's office records not improperly excluded where made five years before automobile accident. Doty v. Wells, 9 K.A.2d 378, 380, 682 P.2d 672 (1984).

22. Admission of subsequent statements by defendant concerning possible violence relevant to intent when alleged threats made. State v. Abu-Isba, 235 K. 851, 858, 685 P.2d 856 (1984).

23. Question reserved merely attacking adverse decision on evidentiary question does not meet standard of statewide interest. State v. Brown, 236 K. 800, 802, 696 P.2d 954 (1985).

24. Trial court's limiting expert witness' testimony to prior deposition after unannounced visit to defendant's hospital thoughtful resolution of surprise issue. Hagedorn v. Stormont-Vail Regional Med. Center, 238 K. 691, 697, 715 P.2d 2 (1986).

25. Cited; third of three-pronged standard for admissibility of prior crimes (60-455) discussed. State v. Breazeale, 238 K. 714, 723, 714 P.2d 1356 (1986).

26. Cited; exclusion of lay witness testimony regarding defendant's good character as inadmissible and lacking probative value examined. State v. Kuone, 243 K. 218, 231, 757 P.2d 289 (1988).

27. Probate value of evidence of prior narcotics convictions and testimony concerning circumstances as outweighing prejudicial effect examined. State v. Graham, 244 K. 194, 199, 768 P.2d 259 (1989).

28. Denial of witness' cross-examination on issue of business relationship with prosecutor examined. State v. Jones, 13 K.A.2d 520, 527, 775 P.2d 183 (1989).

29. Late endorsement of witness as unfair surprise to defendant examined. State v. Damewood, 245 K. 676, 685, 783 P.2d 1249 (1989).

30. Attempted rape victim's propensity to form social acquaintances with men on spontaneous basis as habit v. character trait examined. State v. Gonzales, 245 K. 691, 701, 783 P.2d 1239 (1989).

31. Exclusion of admissible evidence where prejudicial to accused under certain conditions noted in concurring opinion. State v. Osby, 246 K. 621, 634, 793 P.2d 243 (1990).

32. When evidence regarding prior civil wrongs (60-455) admissible examined; factors to be considered by trial court in ruling upon admissibility examined. Brunett v. Albrecht, 248 K. 634, 638, 810 P.2d 276 (1991).

33. Probative value of evidence versus unfair and harmful surprise to defendant examined. State v. Ji, 251 K. 3, 14, 832 P.2d 1176 (1992).

34. Admissibility of acts constituting crime that has been expunged examined where act may be relevant to fact in issue. Pope v. Ransdell, 251 K. 112, 129, 833 P.2d 965 (1992).

35. Trial court's refusal to allow doctor to testify upheld where same doctor improperly barred by previous judge ten months earlier. Curry v. Klein, 251 K. 670, 675, 840 P.2d 443 (1992).

36. Probative value versus unfair and harmful surprise examined. State v. Cooper, 252 K. 340, 347, 845 P.2d 631 (1993).

37. Cited in upholding trial court's discretion in resolving balance of probative value and prejudice potential; evidence of gang affiliation. State v. Tran, 252 K. 494, 504, 847 P.2d 680 (1993).

38. No abuse of district court's discretion in admission of evidence where probative value of evidence out-weighed prejudice potential. State v. Kingsley, 252 K. 761, 770, 851 P.2d 370 (1993).

39. Admissibility of prior crimes evidence examined. State v. Synoracki, 253 K. 59, 853 P.2d 24 (1993).

40. Whether probative value of surprise discovery of advertising brochure and correspondence outweighed prejudicial effect examined. Hurlbut v. Conoco, Inc. 253 K. 515, 533, 856 P.2d 1313 (1993).

41. Whether the probative value of motive evidence outweighed prejudice and surprise examined. McKissick v. Frye, 255 K. 566, 580, 876 P.2d 1371 (1994).

42. 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 K. 90, 122, 883 P.2d 1120 (1994).

43. Probative value of gang membership as proof of witness bias outweighed possible prejudicial effect. State v. Knighten, 260 K. 47, 53, 917 P.2d 1324 (1996).

44. Evidence of public censure of doctor for providing false information in unrelated matter inadmissible in malpractice suit. Shirley v. Smith, 261 K. 685, 698, 933 P.2d 651 (1997).

45. Trial court's admission of good character evidence of murder victim held harmless error. State v. Galloway, 268 K. 682, 1 P.3d 844 (2000).

46. Evidence of gang membership admissible to show motive or witness bias. State v. Ross, 280 K. 878, 127 P.3d 249 (2006).

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

48. Testimony excluded that although relevant and admissible, was more prejudicial than probative. State v. Cosby, 285 K. 230, 250, 169 P.3d 1128 (2007).

49. Mentioned; whether admissibility of evidence of other crimes has probative value not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. State v. Hampton, 38 K.A.2d 209, 212, 162 P.3d 840 (2007).

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

51. District court upheld in granting motion to bar several of defendant's damage claims as untimely or inadequately disclosed. U.S.D. No. 232 v. CWD Investments, 288 K. 536, 205 P.3d 1245 (2009).

52. Defendant's argument that testimony should have been excluded is rejected; no timely objection. State v. Richmond, 289 K. 419, 212 P.3d 165 (2009).

53. Multi-step evidentiary analysis is required for appellate review of motion in limine. State v. Shadden, 290 K. 803, 235 P.3d 436 (2010).

54. Gang evidence is generally admissible if relevant. State v. Jones, 295 K. 804, 286 P.3d 562 (2012).

55. In considering the risk of undue prejudice from evidence of other acts of sexual misconduct, the district court should consider: (1) The likelihood that the evidence will contribute to an improperly based jury verdict; (2) whether the evidence will distract the jury from the central trial issues; and (3) how time-consuming considering the evidence will be. State v. Satchell, 311 K. 633, 643, 466 P.3d 459 (2020).

56. In considering the probative value of evidence of other acts of sexual misconduct, the district court should consider: (1) How clearly the prior acts were proved; (2) how probative the evidence is of the material fact sought to be proved; (3) how seriously disputed the material fact is; and (4) whether the government can obtain any less-prejudicial evidence. State v. Satchell, 311 K. 633, 641, 466 P.3d 459 (2020).


 | Next

CURRENT SESSION
  A Summary of Special Sessions in Kansas
  Bill Brief for Senate Bill No. 1
  Bill Brief for House Bill No. 2001

LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL
  6/03/2024 Meeting Notice Agenda
  LCC Policies

REVISOR OF STATUTES
  Chapter 72 Statute Transfer List
  Kansas School Equity & Enhancement Act
  Gannon v. State
  Information for Special Session 2021
  General Info., Legal Analysis & Research
  2023 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2022 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2021 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2020 Amended & repealed Statutes
  2019 Amended & Repealed Statutes

USEFUL LINKS
Session Laws

OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES
Kansas Legislature
Administrative Services
Division of Post Audit
Research Department