Home >> Statutes >> Back

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

60-464. Authentication or identification of evidence; examples. (a) In general. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

(b) Examples. The following are examples only, not a complete list, of evidence that satisfies the requirement:

(1) Testimony of a witness with knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.

(2) Nonexpert opinion about handwriting. A nonexpert's opinion that handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current litigation.

(3) Comparison by an expert witness or the trier of fact. A comparison with an authenticated specimen by an expert witness or the trier of fact.

(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.

(5) Opinion about a voice. An opinion identifying a person's voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.

(6) Evidence about a telephone conversation. For a telephone conversation, evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time to:

(A) A particular person, if circumstances, including self-identification, show that the person answering was the one called; or

(B) a particular business, if the call was made to a business and the call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.

(7) Evidence about public records. Evidence that:

(A) A document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or

(B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.

(8) Evidence about ancient documents or data compilations. For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:

(A) Is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;

(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and

(C) is at least 30 years old when offered.

(9) Evidence about a process or system. Evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result.

(10) Methods provided by a statute or rule. Any method of authentication or identification allowed by law or a rule prescribed by the supreme court.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-464; L. 2021, ch. 65, § 2; July 1.

Source or prior law:

G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 367; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 364; R.S. 1923, 60-2849.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Warning: Failure to Counter an Objection may be Hazardous to Your Case," Vol. IX, No. 2, J.K.T.L.A. 23 (1985).

"Admissibility of Electronic Information," Cecilia K. Garrett, 71 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 33 (2002).


Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-2849.

1. Authenticity of writing may be proved by indirect or circumstantial evidence under certain circumstances. State v. Milum, 202 K. 196, 197, 198, 447 P.2d 801.

2. Cited; requirements discussed in relationship to 60-460. Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Berge, 205 K. 755, 764, 473 P.2d 48.

3. Sufficient foundation for admission of incriminating note and cards into evidence. State v. Rives, 220 K. 141, 143, 551 P.2d 788.

4. Applied in determining 60-460 inapplicable to support finding by court of ownership of automobile. Motors Insurance Corporation v. Richardson, 220 K. 288, 290, 552 P.2d 894.

5. Although authenticity of document requirements not met, defendant must show harm or prejudice by error of admission. State v. Waufle, 9 K.A.2d 68, 76, 77, 673 P.2d 109 (1983).

6. Cited; improper admission of telephone records under 60-460(m) affecting defendant's credibility harmless where other bases for doubt existed. State v. Wilson, 11 K.A.2d 504, 508, 511, 728 P.2d 1332 (1986).

7. Cited; refusal to allow into evidence letter to defendant from fellow defendant written while both incarcerated examined. State v. Dunn, 243 K. 414, 427, 758 P.2d 718 (1988).

8. Documents obtained through a request for production of documents may, in the court's discretion, be relied upon as authentic for purposes of a summary judgment motion because the method in which they are obtained lends them credibility. Watco Companies, Inc. v. Campbell, 52 K.A.2d 602, 607-610, 371 P.3d 360 (2016).

9. Audio recordings of jail phone calls qualify as writings under K.S.A. 60-401, and admission of such recordings is governed by K.S.A. 60-464. State v. Jenkins, 311 K. 39, 50, 455 P.3d 779 (2020).

 | Next

  6/03/2024 Meeting Notice Agenda
  LCC Policies

  2023 New, Amended and Repealed by KSA
  2023 New, Amended and Repealed by Bill
  2024 Valid Section Numbers
  Chapter 72 Statute Transfer List
  Kansas School Equity & Enhancement Act
  Gannon v. State
  Information for Special Session 2021
  General Info., Legal Analysis & Research
  2022 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2021 Amended & Repealed Statutes
  2020 Amended & repealed Statutes
  2019 Amended & Repealed Statutes

Session Laws

Kansas Legislature
Administrative Services
Division of Post Audit
Research Department