60-419. Prerequisites of knowledge and experience. As a prerequisite for the testimony of a witness on a relevant or material matter, there must be evidence that he or she has personal knowledge thereof, or experience, training or education if such be required. Such evidence may be by the testimony of the witness himself or herself. The judge may reject the testimony of a witness that the witness perceived a matter if the judge finds that no trier of fact could reasonably believe that the witness did perceive the matter. The judge may receive conditionally the testimony of the witness as to a relevant or material matter, subject to the evidence of knowledge, experience, training or education being later supplied in the course of the trial.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-419; January 1, 1964.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Expertise: The Expert and the Learned Treatise," Edward G. Collister, Jr., 17 K.L.R. 167, 170 (1968).
Case note discussing testimony on hospital standards of care, 17 K.L.R. 349, 388 (1969).
"The Locality Doctrine and the Standard of Care of a Physician," Bruce W. Kent, 8 W.L.J. 339, 351 (1969).
"Objections," Laurence Rose, 2 J.K.T.L.A. No. 3, 18 (1978).
"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).
"On the Admissibility of Expert Testimony in Kansas," Mark D. Hinderks and Steve Leben, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 9, 24 (1997).
"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).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Test of competency of expert witness stated. Casey v. Phillips Pipeline Co., 199 Kan. 538, 546, 548, 431 P.2d 518.
2. Action for damages against hospital; refusal of testimony of medical expert; reversible error. Avery v. St. Francis Hospital and School of Nursing, 201 Kan. 687, 692, 693, 442 P.2d 1013.
3. Witness may be first examined on data upon which expert opinion is based when witness not sufficiently informed of relevant facts. Staudinger v. Sooner Pipe & Supply Corporation, 208 Kan. 101, 103, 490 P.2d 619.
4. Cited; determination of qualification of expert witnesses is discretionary with trial court; challenge of expert witness defeated. State v. Jones, 209 Kan. 526, 532, 498 P.2d 65.
5. Trial court did not err in excluding evidence in criminal proceeding. State v. Duncan, 221 Kan. 714, 723, 562 P.2d 84.
6. Law enforcement officer's testimony as to what a certain tool is normally used for held admissible. State v. Hernandez, 222 Kan. 175, 177, 563 P.2d 474.
7. Testimony admissible under K.S.A. 60-456 properly excluded for lack of proper foundation. Stafford v. Karmann, 2 Kan. App. 2d 248, 250, 577 P.2d 836.
8. Cross-examination not unduly limited to evidence with requisite personal knowledge. State v. Jaso, 10 Kan. App. 2d 137, 142, 694 P.2d 1305 (1985).
9. Witness with master's degree in social work and extensive relevant experience as qualifying as expert on child abuse examined. State v. Reser, 244 Kan. 306, 310, 767 P.2d 1277 (1989).
10. Knowledge sufficient to testify regarding certain premises as a "safe house" examined. State v. Cruz, 15 Kan. App. 2d 476, 486, 809 P.2d 1233 (1991).
11. Whether court erred by admitting nonexpert testimony regarding operation of adult clubs examined. State v. McGraw, 19 Kan. App. 2d 1001, 1012, 879 P.2d 1147 (1994).
12. Witness had sufficient experience to opine regarding loss of past and future profits and how loss calculated. Hawkinson v. Bennett, 265 Kan. 564, 590, 962 P.2d 445 (1998).
13. Cited; court required foundation before defense counsel could question trooper about certain DUI field sobriety tests. State v. Garcia, 40 Kan. App. 2d 870, 875, 196 P.3d 943 (2008).
|
|