Source or prior law:

G.S. 1868, ch. 80, § 319; L. 1909, ch. 182, § 317; R.S. 1923, 60-2801.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Major departure from prior rule, "Highlights of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure (1963)," Spencer A. Gard, 2 W.L.J. 199, 212 (1962).

Discussion of criminal procedure in state courts, Frank R. Gray, 34 J.B.A.K. 316, 320 (1965).

Reference made to identification of accused from "mug shots," Spencer A. Gard, 16 K.L.R. 125, 131 (1967).

"Benton v. Maryland: A Further Extension of the Rights of the Individual in Criminal Proceedings," 18 K.L.R. 309, 314 (1970).

"Criminal Law—Incompetency of Defense Counsel," Jess J. Myers, 9 W.L.J. 293 (1970).

"Other Vices, Other Crimes: An Evidentiary Dilemma," M.C. Slough, 20 K.L.R. 411, 414 (1972).

Comment concerning rebuttal of character evidence, 14 W.L.J. 383, 385 (1975).

Survey of criminal law, Dan Walter and Dick Ring, 15 W.L.J. 341, 345 (1976).

The legal effect of jury answers to special verdict questions under Kansas comparative negligence law, David E. Pierce, 16 W.L.J. 114, 121, (1976).

"Other Vices, Other Crimes: K.S.A. 60-455 Revisited," M. C. Slough, 26 K.L.R. 161, 169 (1978).

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

"Survey of Kansas Law: Evidence," Spencer A. Gard, 27 K.L.R. 225, 235 (1979).

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

"Survey of Kansas Law: Evidence," Mark M. Dobson, 32 K.L.R. 625, 634 (1984).

"Drawing the Sting on Prior Convictions," Laurence Rose, Vol. VII, No. 6, J.K.T.L.A. 7 (1984).

"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).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-2801 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.

1. Prior to January 1, 1964, criminal defendant who took the stand could be examined on prior convictions. State v. Ross, 194 Kan. 692, 401 P.2d 915.

2. Admissibility of evidence considered. State v. Minor, 195 Kan. 539, 541, 407 P.2d 242.

3. Statute limits application of K.S.A. 60-420. Taylor v. Maxwell, 197 Kan. 509, 512, 419 P.2d 822.

4. Testimony concerning identification of defendant from police photographs not violation hereof. State v. Childs, 198 Kan. 4, 9, 422 P.2d 898.

5. Evidence of prior conviction not admissible for purpose of impairing credibility. State v. Motley, 199 Kan. 335, 336, 338, 430 P.2d 264.

6. Crime must involve dishonesty or false statement; admissibility not based on penalty imposed for crime. Tucker v. Lower, 200 Kan. 1, 3, 4, 5, 434 P.2d 320.

7. Where evidence of prior offenses inadmissible hereunder but admissible under K.S.A. 60-455, court must instruct jury as to its limited purpose; failure to do so, regardless of request for such, is prejudicial error. State v. Roth, 200 Kan. 677, 678, 680, 682, 684, 685, 438 P.2d 58.

8. Construed with provisions of K.S.A. 60-455; admissibility of evidence of prior convictions considered. State v. McCorvey, 199 Kan. 194, 196, 197, 198, 428 P.2d 762. Modified in part: State v. Roth, 200 Kan. 677, 682, 683, 438 P.2d 58.

9. Evidence of prior offenses of witness inadmissible to impair credibility where witness is the accused and has not introduced evidence solely for purpose of supporting his credibility. State v. Roth, 200 Kan. 677, 678, 680, 682, 684, 685, 438 P.2d 58.

10. Evidence of prior conviction inadmissible for sole purpose of impairing the accused's credibility when he takes stand unless he first introduces evidence admissible solely for purpose of supporting credibility. State v. Cantrell, 201 Kan. 182, 187, 188, 440 P.2d 580.

11. Not error for state to cross-examine defendant as to previous convictions and acts of misconduct when defendant placed his credibility as witness in evidence. State v. DeLespine, 201 Kan. 348, 351, 440 P.2d 572.

12. Cross-examination of witness as to conviction of contributing to dependency and neglect of minor not in violation of statute where defendant attempted to inject juvenile court proceedings into case at all times during trial. State v. Fahy, 201 Kan. 366, 369, 440 P.2d 566.

13. Extent of cross-examination limited by section. State v. Jackson, 201 Kan. 795, 798, 443 P.2d 279.

14. Cross-examination improper under this section; jury instructions; no prejudicial error. State v. Wright, 203 Kan. 54, 55, 56, 453 P.2d 1.

15. Where defendant testifies as to prior conviction on direct examination, subject to cross-examination thereon. State v. Pappan, 206 Kan. 195, 197, 477 P.2d 989.

16. Held error to inquire if witness had ever been convicted of felonies; question broader in scope than section permits. State v. Armstrong, 207 Kan. 681, 688, 486 P.2d 1322.

17. Former conviction admissible to attack credibility. Munsell v. Ideal Food Stores, 208 Kan. 909, 928, 494 P.2d 1063.

18. "Terroristic threat" prosecution; evidence of prior convictions elicited on cross-examination; no evidence supporting credibility; prejudicial error. State v. Gunzelman, 210 Kan. 481, 489, 502 P.2d 705.

19. Admission of testimony of prior crimes of defendant held proper in cross-examination responsive to testimony on direct examination. State v. Ralls, 213 Kan. 249, 255, 515 P.2d 1205.

20. Drug offenses per se do not involve dishonesty or false statement; convictions therefor inadmissible as affecting credibility. State v. Belote, 213 Kan. 291, 294, 295, 516 P.2d 159.

21. Construed with K.S.A. 60-447; cross-examination of defendant on past act of violence allowed. State v. Stokes, 215 Kan. 5, 7, 523 P.2d 364.

22. Applied; error to permit cross-examination as to prior convictions to impair credibility. State v. Harris, 215 Kan. 649, 650, 527 P.2d 949.

23. Contention that cross-examination of witness concerning prior conviction was in violation of section without merit. State v. Price, 215 Kan. 718, 722, 723, 529 P.2d 85.

24. Scope and extent of cross-examination in prosecution for unauthorized sale of marijuana with discretion of trial court. State v. Nix, 215 Kan. 880, 884, 529 P.2d 147.

25. Applied; evidence of prior conviction on cross-examination reversible error; not within scope of direct examination. State v. Harris, 215 Kan. 961, 962, 963, 529 P.2d 101.

26. Cross-examination as to former conviction proper to rebut direct examination as to character. State v. Giddings, 216 Kan. 14, 21, 531 P.2d 445.

27. Applied; crime of robbery constituted dishonesty; cross-examination of witness for purpose of impeachment upheld. State v. Laughlin, 216 Kan. 54, 55, 56, 530 P.2d 1220.

28. Refusal of trial court to compel prosecutor to produce information concerning prior convictions of complainant, error. State v. Humphrey, 217 Kan. 352, 359, 537 P.2d 155.

29. Adjudication of delinquency involving dishonesty or false statement constituted conviction of crime within meaning of section; admissibility. State v. Deffenbaugh, 217 Kan. 469, 474, 536 P.2d 1030.

30. Admission of entire criminal file not proper method of establishing prior conviction as element of charge under K.S.A. 21-4204; not reversible error under facts. State v. Farris, 218 Kan. 136, 139, 542 P.2d 725.

31. 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.

32. Mentioned; evidence of good character introduced in criminal proceeding; proper under K.S.A. 60-447 to cross-examine on prior convictions. State v. Bowers, 218 Kan. 736, 737, 738, 545 P.2d 303.

33. Evidence of relevant convictions only are admissible. State v. Johnson, 219 Kan. 847, 852, 549 P.2d 1370.

34. Exclusion of evidence as to prior convictions of a witness not reversible error. State v. Mahkuk, 220 Kan. 74, 77, 551 P.2d 869.

35. Admission of evidence of burglary conviction to impeach credibility of witness upheld. State v. Thomas, 220 Kan. 104, 106, 551 P.2d 873.

36. Section inapplicable in criminal prosecution for violation of worthless check statute; credibility not an issue. State v. Powell, 220 Kan. 168, 172, 551 P.2d 902.

37. Conviction of crimes involving dishonesty may be shown for purpose of impairing credibility of witness. State v. Crowley, 220 Kan. 532, 535, 536, 552 P.2d 971.

38. Purpose of second sentence stated; evidence admitted in violation of section; conviction reversed. State v. Werkowski, 220 Kan. 648, 650, 556 P.2d 420.

39. Rebuttal testimony concerning crimes committed in Oklahoma allowed; convictions under K.S.A. 21-3701 and 21-3715 affirmed. State v. Burnett, 221 Kan. 40, 43, 44, 558 P.2d 1087.

40. Permitting state to cross examine defendant on matters he had introduced in evidence not error; conviction under K.S.A. 21-3734 affirmed. State v. Ferguson, 221 Kan. 103, 106, 107, 558 P.2d 1092.

41. Rebuttal evidence competent to show testimony false; admissible to attack credibility. State v. Blue, 221 Kan. 185, 188, 558 P.2d 136.

42. Prejudicial error in limiting rebuttal evidence on collateral issues; new trial ordered. State v. Nixon, 223 Kan. 788, 792, 576 P.2d 691.

43. Conviction of selling liquor without a license not admissible hereunder; conviction of aggravated robbery affirmed. State v. Woolridge, 224 Kan. 480, 580 P.2d 1350.

44. Referred to in determining question of delinquency adjudication in lower court not moot. State v. Bolden, 2 Kan. App. 2d 470, 472, 581 P.2d 1195.

45. Cross-examination as to reason for incarceration inadmissible to impeach credibility. State v. Shuckahosee, 2 Kan. App. 2d 717, 718, 587 P.2d 923.

46. Failure to make timely objection to admissibility of evidence bars consideration of admissibility on appeal. State v. Whitehead, 226 Kan. 719, 721, 602 P.2d 1263.

47. Applied; evidence of crime not admissible hereunder until there is a conviction. State v. Lomax & Williams, 227 Kan. 651, 655, 608 P.2d 959.

48. Section not violated; defendant opened subject on direct examination. State v. Burnett, 4 Kan. App. 2d 236, 237, 238, 604 P.2d 284.

49. Admission of mug book photograph altered to conceal writing and numbers on its face was not prejudicial as placing defendant's character in evidence. State v. Mack, 228 Kan. 83, 87, 612 P.2d 158.

50. Evidence of prior criminal conduct is subject to limitations hereunder. State v. Bryant, 228 Kan. 239, 245, 613 P.2d 1348.

51. Trial court committed reversible error in allowing cross-examination of defendant on prior conviction; conviction reversed. State v. Quick, 229 Kan. 117, 119, 122, 621 P.2d 997.

52. Drug offenses per se do not involve dishonesty or false statement in commission; convictions thereof inadmissible for purpose of impairing credibility. State v. Robinson, Lloyd & Clark, 229 Kan. 301, 308, 624 P.2d 964.

53. Arson not inherently crime of dishonesty reflecting on credibility; exclusion of evidence upheld. State v. Brown, 6 Kan. App. 2d 556, 558, 630 P.2d 731 (1982).

54. No trial court error in admitting testimony elicited to show witness bias or prejudice. State v. Loveland, 8 Kan. App. 2d 196, 200, 653 P.2d 472 (1982).

55. Where defendant's testimony goes beyond bounds of statutory protection and refers to specific prior events, state may cross-examine. State v. Chatmon, 234 Kan. 197, 203, 671 P.2d 531 (1983).

56. Lack of conviction renders evidence of pending charge inadmissible to impeach credibility of witness. State v. Handley, 234 Kan. 454, 460, 673 P.2d 1155 (1983).

57. Objection to admission of criminal conviction by mere word "objection" inadequate for appeal. Price v. Grimes, 234 Kan. 898, 901, 677 P.2d 969 (1984).

58. Limiting evidence of prior crimes to credibility question, with totality of representation, overcomes defense error admitting prior crimes. State v. Logan, 236 Kan. 79, 84, 689 P.2d 778 (1984).

59. Where crime does not involve dishonesty or false statement, failure to give credibility instruction thereon correct. Fudge v. City of Kansas City, 239 Kan. 369, 376, 720 P.2d 1093 (1986).

60. Reversible error in permitting admission of evidence of appellant's previous convictions. State v. Macomber, 241 Kan. 154, 156, 157, 734 P.2d 1148 (1987).

61. Excluding evidence of conviction involving dishonesty as harmless error absent showing of prejudice to complaining party (K.S.A. 60-2105) determined. Bick v. Peat Marwick & Main, 14 Kan. App. 2d 699, 711, 799 P.2d 94 (1990).

62. Defendant's impeachment of state witness not limited to cross-examination. State v. Beans, 247 Kan. 343, 348, 800 P.2d 145 (1990).

63. 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).

64. Admissibility of acts constituting crime that has been expunged examined where act may be relevant to fact in issue. Pope v. Ransdell, 251 Kan. 112, 124, 833 P.2d 965 (1992).

65. Refusal of trial court to declare mistrial after defendant cross-examined about prior conviction considered; no abuse of discretion found. State v. Chandler, 252 Kan. 797, 800, 801, 850 P.2d 803 (1993).

66. Evidence of commission of crime or civil wrong that is admissible independent of K.S.A. 60-455 is admissible independent of K.S.A. 60-421. State v. Bowman, 252 Kan. 883, 887, 889, 850 P.2d 236 (1993).

67. Admissibility of prior crimes evidence examined. State v. Synoracki, 253 Kan. 59, 69, 853 P.2d 24 (1993).

68. Whether evidence of marijuana possession conviction is admissible as rebuttal evidence examined. State v. Peckham, 255 Kan. 310, 331, 875 P.2d 257 (1994).

69. Whether failure to give credibility instruction where conviction involves dishonesty or false statement is reversible error examined. State v. Davis, 255 Kan. 357, 367, 874 P.2d 1156 (1994).

70. Whether judge's limitations on defendant's testimony violated defendant's right to present a defense examined. State v. Gibbons, 256 Kan. 951, 957, 889 P.2d 772 (1995).

71. Whether court abused discretion by failing to order mistrial after prosecutor asked about previous unrelated criminal convictions examined. State v. McMullen, 20 Kan. App. 2d 985, 988, 894 P.2d 251 (1995).

72. Trial court did not abuse discretion by admitting defendant's federal fraud conviction as relevant in marital homicide prosecution. State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 980, 897 P.2d 152 (1995).

73. 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).

74. If defendant unsolicited emphasizes he or she is then telling the truth, such testimony may be considered as supporting defendant's credibility. State v. Johnson, 21 Kan. App. 2d 576, 578, 907 P.2d 144 (1995).

75. Cited in discussion concerning defense counsel's lack of awareness of section for ineffective counsel purposes. State v. Rice, 261 Kan. 567, 604, 932 P.2d 981 (1997).

76. As to credibility of doctor, evidence of public censure for providing false information in unrelated matter inadmissible in malpractice suit. Shirley v. Smith, 261 Kan. 685, 699, 700, 933 P.2d 651 (1997).

77. Evidence of witness diversion for theft constituted evidence of prior bad act; not conviction of crime involving dishonesty. State v. Sanders, 263 Kan. 317, 320, 949 P.2d 1084 (1997).

78. Evidence that defendant was on probation at time of alleged crime properly admitted as rebuttal evidence. State v. Thompkins, 263 Kan. 602, 624, 952 P.2d 1338 (1998).

79. 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).

80. No error to admit evidence of defendant's house arrest. State v. McCarty, 271 Kan. 510, 23 P.3d 829 (2001).

81. Court discusses when defendant's prior convictions may be used for impeachment. State v. Woolverton, 284 Kan. 59, 64, 65, 159 P.3d 985 (2007).

82. Section requires a conviction before evidence of a crime is admissible to impeach witness' credibility. State v. Scott, 39 Kan. App. 2d 49, 57-60, 177 P.3d 972 (2008).

83. 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).

84. Court abused its discretion in excluding defendant's prior inconsistent statements. State v. Stinson, 43 Kan. App. 2d 468, 227 P.3d 11 (2010).

85. Erroneously admitted prior conviction likely prejudiced the jury; conviction reversed. State v. Cook, 45 Kan. App. 2d 468, 249 P.3d 454 (2011).

86. The trial court was proper in refusing to admit evidence of an accomplice's conviction. State v. Sampson, 297 Kan. 288, 301 P.3d 276 (2013).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov