Cross References to Related Sections:

Expert witnesses in medical malpractice actions, see 60-3412.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Survey of law of evidence, 12 K.L.R. 239, 345 (1963).

"Expertise: The Expert and the Learned Treatise," Edward G. Collister, Jr., 17 K.L.R. 167, 168, 169, 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).

"The Entrapment Defense in Drug Cases," Richard H. Seaton, 41 J.B.A.K. 217, 239 (1972).

"Opinion Testimony—Where Do We Go From Here?" James A. Walker, 14 W.L.J. 169, 170, 171 (1975).

Note concerning automobile accident reconstruction, 14 W.L.J. 264 (1975).

Police expert testimony, 18 W.L.J. 659, 660, 661, 663, 664 (1979).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Evidence," Spencer A. Gard, 27 K.L.R. 225, 232 (1979).

"Lost Profits and Hadley v. Baxendale," Wyatt McDowell Wright, 19 W.L.J. 488, 510 (1980).

"Evidence: Does the Eyewitness Really See," John Barlow Spear, 21 W.L.J. 698, 700 (1982).

"Use of the Expert Witness," Randall E. Fisher, 2 J.K.T.L.A. No. 1, 19 (1978).

"Expert Testimony in Products Liability," Lynn R. Johnson, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 5, 22, 23 (1980).

"The Admissibility of Child Victim Hearsay in Kansas: A Defense Perspective," Christopher B. McNeil, 23 W.L.J. 265, 268, 269 (1984).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Evidence," Mark M. Dobson, 32 K.L.R. 625, 653 (1984).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Criminal Law," Robert A. Wason, 32 K.L.R. 395, 397 (1984).

"The Insanity Defense in Kansas: Procedure and Practice," Jack Peggs, 53 J.K.B.A. 187 (1984).

"Legal and Psychological Issues in the Use of Expert Testimony on Rape Trauma Syndrome," Bonnie J. Buchele and James P. Buchele, 25 W.L.J. 26, 33 (1985).

"Settlements and Verdicts," Eugene Ralston, Vol. 6, No. 6, J.K.T.L.A. 28 (1983).

"Accident Reconstruction Testimony by an Investigating Officer," Vol. IX, No. 1, J.K.T.L.A. 18 (1985).

"A Fresh Look at Hypothetical Questions and Ultimate Issues: The Kansas Experience," Stanley D. Davis, 36 K.L.R. 311, 320, 328 (1988).

"Proof Of Causation: 3 Modes For Technical Issues," Jack Peggs, 58 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 21 (1989).

"Recent Decisions Affecting the Trial of Cases," Ruth M. Benien, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XVI, No. 3, 18, 19 (1993).

"Kansas' Sexual Predator Act and the Impact of Expert Predictions: Psyched Out by the Daubert Test," Clayton C. Skaggs, 34 W.L.J. 320, 324, 339 (1995).

"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).

"Polygraph Issues Update (Part I): "Lie-Detector" results are declared to be inadmissible in court because they are unscientific and unreliable, but polygraph use is pervasive and polygraph results are consequential," Robert Michael Beattie, Jr., J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXII, No. 5, 6 (1999).

"Expert Inductive Reasoning and Frye: Weight, Not Admissibility," Chan P. Townsley, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXIV, No. 4, 4 (2001).

"Discovery Issues in Sedgwick County," John W. Johnson, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXVIII, No. 3, 11, 12, 13 (2005).

"Discovery Issues in Sedgwick County," John W. Johnson, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. 28, No. 3, 11 (2005).

"Comparison of Federal and State Court Practice," David G. Seely, 75 J.K.B.A. No. 4, 28 (2006).

"Turning a Blind Eye to Justice: Kansas Courts Must Integrate Scientific Research Regarding Eyewitness Testimony in the Courtroom," Bethany Shelton, 56 K.L.R. 960 (2008).

"The Admissibility of Expert Witness Testimony in Kansas Federal Courts," Derek S. Casey, 35 J.K.A.J., No. 2, 13 (2011).

"SB 11: Say Hello to Daubert and Revised Caps, and the Collateral Source Rule Survives," David R. Morantz, 37 J.K.A.J. No. 6, 10 (July 2014).

Attorney General's Opinions:

Expert testimony of out-of-state arson investigators is admissible even though such witnesses are not licensed in Kansas. 87-138.

Kansas dental board member who testifies as an expert witness in a board disciplinary hearing may be considered a governmental employee covered by the Kansas tort claims act. 2011-14.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Subsections (b) and (c) considered and applied; qualifications of an expert considered. Grohusky v. Atlas Assurance Co., 195 Kan. 626, 629, 630, 408 P.2d 697.

2. Trial judge deemed to have made requisite findings in admitting expert testimony. McElhaney v. Rouse, 197 Kan. 136, 144, 415 P.2d 241.

3. Police officer may not give expert opinion on reasonable speed. Gardner v. Pereboom, 197 Kan. 188, 194, 416 P.2d 67.

4. Qualifications of witness and admissibility of testimony are within discretion of judge. Taylor v. Maxwell, 197 Kan. 509, 511, 419 P.2d 822.

5. Terms "perceived" and "made known" defined; test of competency of expert witness stated. Casey v. Phillips Pipeline Co., 199 Kan. 538, 546, 548, 550, 431 P.2d 518.

6. Opinion of expert regarding mental condition of defendant considered and held admissible. State v. Coltharp, 199 Kan. 598, 604, 433 P.2d 418.

7. Expert witness may render opinion on facts or data within his personal knowledge or observation or made known to him at hearing. Howard v. Stoughton, 199 Kan. 787, 790, 433 P.2d 567.

8. Admissibility of opinion testimony as to habit or custom is within discretion of trial judge. Trimble, Administrator v. Coleman Co., Inc., 200 Kan. 350, 354, 437 P.2d 219.

9. Cited; admissibility of opinion or expert testimony discussed. Trimble, Administrator v. Coleman Co., Inc., 200 Kan. 350, 356, 357, 437 P.2d 219.

10. Trial court vested with wide discretion in receiving opinion evidence under subsection (a). Osborn v. Lesser, 201 Kan. 45, 47, 439 P.2d 395.

11. Action for damages against hospital; refusal of testimony of medical expert; reversible error. Avey v. St. Francis Hospital & School of Nursing, 201 Kan. 687, 692, 693, 442 P.2d 1013.

12. Opinions by medical experts on competency of penitentiary inmate's capacity to make a will properly admitted under subsection (b)(1). In re Estate of Bernatski, 204 Kan. 131, 135, 141, 460 P.2d 527.

13. Fact that expert testimony was excluded improperly held not to require reversal; error in the exclusion was harmless. Atkins v. Bayer, 204 Kan. 509, 511, 464 P.2d 233.

14. Testimony of expert on the question of produce aisle maintenance held to be within the provisions of this statute. Elrod v. Walls, Inc., 205 Kan. 808, 813, 473 P.2d 12.

15. Doctor testifying pursuant to subsection (b) is justified in expressing opinion as to the nature of injury revealed by his examination. State v. Carr, 206 Kan. 341, 342, 479 P.2d 816.

16. Under subsection (d) hereof, testimony in the form of opinions otherwise admissible given by a witness not testifying as an expert, is not objectionable because it embraces the ultimate issue or issues to be decided by the trier of facts. Noland v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 207 Kan. 72, 75, 483 P.2d 1029.

17. Based on the facts, exclusion of opinion testimony not in violation or abusing court's discretion. Howard v. Miller, 207 Kan. 246, 252, 485 P.2d 199.

18. Statement admitted under hearsay exception held more nearly constituted opinion of non-expert under subsection (a) and not reversible error. McGlothlin v. Wiles, 207 Kan. 718, 725, 487 P.2d 533.

19. Expert witness may not testify as to weight or credibility of evidence. Frase v. Henry, 444 F.2d 1228, 1231.

20. 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.

21. Construed; court held lay opinions of observed speed of vehicles are proper. Hampton v. State Highway Commission, 209 Kan. 565, 583, 498 P.2d 236.

22. Sufficiency of expert's qualifications in investigation of accident; no prejudicial error in admission of testimony. Hagood v. Hall, 211 Kan. 46, 53, 505 P.2d 736.

23. Subsection (a) cited; trial court erred in excluding expert medical opinion expressed in terms of reasonable medical probability. Nunez v. Wilson, 211 Kan. 443, 445, 448, 507 P.2d 329.

24. Nonexpert witnesses allowed to testify regarding defendant's sanity where they had opportunity to observe defendant shortly after offense. State v. Randol, 212 Kan. 461, 467, 468, 513 P.2d 248.

25. Expert opinion as to parties actions contributing to accident proper; when opinion embracing ultimate issue admissible discussed. Ziegler v. Crofoot, 213 Kan. 480, 483, 484, 485, 486, 488, 516 P.2d 954. Overruled in part, Lollis v. Superior Sales Co., 224 Kan. 251, 263, 580 P.2d 423.

26. Subsections (b) and (c) cited in holding police officers' testimony properly admitted as expert testimony in negligence case. Hubbard v. Havlik, 213 Kan. 594, 607, 518 P.2d 352.

27. Doctor's written report of physical examination held to be hearsay; facts "made known" to expert witness are those facts put in evidence. Mesecher v. Cropp, 213 Kan. 695, 702, 518 P.2d 504.

28. Expert's conclusions inadmissible in evidence where issues not beyond determination by laymen jurors. Massoni v. State Highway Commission, 214 Kan. 844, 849, 522 P.2d 973. Overruled in part, Lollis v. Superior Sales Co., 224 Kan. 251, 263, 580 P.2d 423.

29. Applied; "perceived" defined; police officer's testimony held not admissible as substantive evidence. Smith v. Estate of Hall, 215 Kan. 262, 265, 524 P.2d 684.

30. Applied; prosecution for perjury; admission of testimony of nonexperts upheld. State v. Craig, 215 Kan. 381, 383, 524 P.2d 679.

31. Paragraph (b) applied; wrongful death action; trial court did not commit prejudicial error in reciting testimony of witness. In re Estate of Minney, 216 Kan. 178, 182, 531 P.2d 52.

32. Expert opinions by psychiatrists couched in conclusionary terms may, on cross-examination, be open to data on which such opinions were based. State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 442, 532 P.2d 1309.

33. Expert witness held sufficiently qualified to testify; conviction of aggravated robbery upheld. State v. McClain, 216 Kan. 602, 606, 533 P.2d 1277.

34. Paragraph (d) referred to; admission of opinion testimony not error under facts. State v. Stephenson, 217 Kan. 169, 172, 535 P.2d 940.

35. Subsection (b) construed with K.S.A. 60-458; opinion of expert witness held admissible in prosecution for violation of K.S.A. 65-4127a. State v. Brooks, 217 Kan. 485, 486, 536 P.2d 1365.

36. Reformation of lease on basis of mutual mistake of parties upheld; testimony allowed. Schlatter v. Ibarra, 218 Kan. 67, 74, 542 P.2d 710.

37. Applied; expert testimony of experienced title insurance representative properly admitted; tort action for damages. Ford v. Guarantee Abstract & Title Co., 220 Kan. 244, 245, 266, 553 P.2d 254.

38. Permitting detective to testify concerning "needle marks" on defendant's arm; trial court's discretion not abused. State v. Loudermilk, 221 Kan. 157, 163, 557 P.2d 1229.

39. Trial court did not err in excluding evidence in criminal proceeding. State v. Duncan, 221 Kan. 714, 724, 562 P.2d 84.

40. Testimony in the form of opinions or inferences by non-expert discussed. State v. Amodei, 222 Kan. 140, 146, 563 P.2d 440.

41. 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.

42. Witness' opinion admitted even though a non-expert. State v. Humbolt, 1 Kan. App. 2d 137, 139, 562 P.2d 123.

43. Cited; lay opinion regarding the speed of a vehicle is admissible. Stafford v. Karmann, 2 Kan. App. 2d 248, 577 P.2d 836.

44. Exclusion of proffered expert testimony error; acquisition of knowledge; medical malpractice action. Chandler v. Neosho Memorial Hospital, 223 Kan. 1, 5, 6, 574 P.2d 136.

45. No abuse of discretion in permitting testimony; application of subsection (b); verdict upheld. Stingley v. Interpace Corporation, 223 Kan. 532, 533, 575 P.2d 526.

46. Trial judge deemed to have made requisite findings in admitting expert testimony; weight of testimony is for consideration of trier of fact. Plains Transp. of Kan. v. King, 224 Kan. 17, 578 P.2d 1095.

47. Admission of opinion testimony of police officer who investigated automobile accident held error. Lollis v. Superior Sales Co., 224 Kan. 251, 260, 262, 264, 580 P.2d 423.

48. No abuse of discretion by trial court in rulings on opinion testimony; murder trial. State v. Foy, 224 Kan. 558, 564, 582 P.2d 281.

49. No abuse of discretion in refusing admission of certain expert testimony. Curtis v. Freden, 224 Kan. 646, 649, 585 P.2d 993.

50. Nonexpert shown to have special opportunity to observe defendant allowed to give opinion evidence as to sanity. State v. Shultz, 225 Kan. 135, 137, 587 P.2d 901.

51. Expert opinion based on writings without producing writings allowed; no abuse of discretion; conviction of heroin possession affirmed. State v. Jacques, 2 Kan. App. 2d 277, 290, 579 P.2d 146.

52. Admissibility of testimony of expert witness is subject to the trial court's discretion; convictions of rape and aggravated kidnapping affirmed. State v. Reed, 226 Kan. 519, 520, 601 P.2d 1125.

53. Subsection (b) construed; no abuse of discretion by trial court. State ex rel. Metzler v. St. Francis Hosp. & Medical Center, 227 Kan. 53, 58, 605 P.2d 100.

54. Cited; trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to admit certain expert testimony in medical malpractice action; affirmed. Lindquist v. Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., 227 Kan. 308, 316, 607 P.2d 1339.

55. Opinion as to future business profits based on profitability of comparable businesses admissible. Butler v. Westgate State Bank, 3 Kan. App. 2d 403, 414, 596 P.2d 156.

56. Subsection (b) applied; witness may not be disqualified as an expert solely because he or she is not licensed in Kansas. Dickey v. Corr-A-Glass, 3 Kan. App. 2d 721, 722, 601 P.2d 691.

57. Severance of parental rights based on testimony and opinions of expert witness discussed. In re Watson, 5 Kan. App. 2d 277, 278, 615 P.2d 801.

58. Expert scientific opinion must be generally accepted as reliable before received in evidence. State v. Washington, 229 Kan. 47, 56, 58, 60, 622 P.2d 986.

59. No abuse of discretion in excluding police officer's opinion of speed of vehicle where no expert knowledge shown. Johnson v. Haupt, 5 Kan. App. 2d 682, 683, 623 P.2d 537.

60. Mentioned in action for failure to procure insurance; exercise care duty rule discussed and applied. Marshel Investments, Inc. v. Cohen, 6 Kan. App. 2d 672, 687, 634 P.2d 133 (1981).

61. Expert testimony; nurse would be an expert on bedsores. Mellies v. National Heritage, Inc., 6 Kan. App. 2d 910, 920, 636 P.2d 215 (1981).

62. No abuse of discretion by trial court by admitting expert testimony; conviction of rape reversed upon other grounds. State v. Carr, 230 Kan. 322, 324, 634 P.2d 1104 (1981).

63. Trial court did not commit error by not allowing expert witness for defendant to testify as to the weight or credibility of the evidence. State v. Moore, 230 Kan. 495, 496, 497, 639 P.2d 458 (1982).

64. Trial court did not abuse discretion in denying defendant supporting services; conviction affirmed. State v. Reynolds, 230 Kan. 532, 534, 639 P.2d 461 (1982).

65. Opinion testimony on ultimate issue admitted; special help to jury on technical subject. Pape v. Kansas Power & Light, 231 Kan. 441, 445, 647 P.2d 320 (1982).

66. Psychiatrist's testimony that person suffers rape trauma syndrome held admissible. State v. Marks, 231 Kan. 645, 652, 655, 647 P.2d 1292 (1982).

67. Whether a witness is qualified to testify as to his opinion is determined by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion. Schmeck v. City of Shawnee, 232 Kan. 11, 30, 651 P.2d 585 (1982).

68. Murder conviction upheld; section vests wide discretion in trial court over admission of lay opinion testimony. State v. Crumm, 232 Kan. 254, 261, 654 P.2d 417 (1982).

69. Expert opinion testimony admissible although embracing ultimate issues of fact if of help to jury on technical subjects. Siruta v. Hesston Corp., 232 Kan. 654, 665, 659 P.2d 799 (1983).

70. Discussed at length; videotapes of interviews between defendant and psychologist to show defendant's condition some time after commission of crime properly excluded. State v. Garcia, 233 Kan. 589, 598, 664 P.2d 1343 (1983).

71. Adequate foundation laid for testimony by extension agricultural agent as to value of destroyed tree. State v. Waufle, 9 Kan. App. 2d 68, 74, 673 P.2d 109 (1983).

72. No prohibition from authorizing use of hearsay evidence in determining probable cause at preliminary hearing. State v. Sherry, 233 Kan. 920, 931, 667 P.2d 367 (1983).

73. Where expert testimony embraced issue to be determined by jury, not admissible. State v. Hobson, 234 Kan. 133, 160, 161, 671 P.2d 1365 (1983).

74. No error in allowing state to call two expert serology witnesses who were not in total agreement. State v. Williams, 234 Kan. 233, 237, 238, 670 P.2d 1348 (1983).

75. Testimony by attorney for state's witness elicited for sole purpose of supporting state witness' earlier testimony and prior consistent statements. State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355, 361, 362, 681 P.2d 612 (1984).

76. Lay witness may give opinions or inferences with finding of rational basis and helpful to clearer understanding. State v. McConnell, 9 Kan. App. 2d 688, 692, 688 P.2d 1224 (1984).

77. Where question went to foundation to qualify expert, no abuse in admitting testimony for that purpose. State v. Powell, 9 Kan. App. 2d 748, 749, 750, 687 P.2d 1375 (1984).

78. Opinion testimony of experts on ultimate issues not admissible without limitation; cannot testify complainant was raped. State v. Bressman, 236 Kan. 296, 302, 303, 304, 689 P.2d 901 (1984).

79. Fact that opinions not yet accepted by majority goes to weight, not admissibility. Douglas v. Lombardino, 236 Kan. 471, 484, 487, 693 P.2d 1138 (1985).

80. Opinion as to identity of attacker based on perception of complaining witness; objection goes to weight. State v. Hanks, 236 Kan. 524, 534, 694 P.2d 407 (1985).

81. Surgeon's testimony of computer printout report of psychology test inadmissible and contrary to (b). West v. Martin, 11 Kan. App. 2d 55, 60, 61, 713 P.2d 957 (1986).

82. Cited; battered woman syndrome, expert witness testimony examined. State v. Hodges, 239 Kan. 63, 67, 716 P.2d 563 (1986).

83. Expert witness may not testify as to whether defendant molested (K.S.A. 21-3504) alleged victim. State v. Lash, 237 Kan. 384, 699 P.2d 49 (1985).

84. Trial court did not abuse discretion where medical expert based opinion on facts admitted into evidence. State v. Strauch, 239 Kan. 203, 213, 215, 718 P.2d 613 (1986).

85. Testimony of lay observer (former rape counselor and prosecuting attorney) as rebuttal to expert medical testimony has some relevance. State v. Hayes, 239 Kan. 443, 447, 720 P.2d 1049 (1986).

86. Cited; use of lay opinion testimony concerning statements made to witnesses by managerial personnel relative to race examined. Smith v. United Technologies, 240 Kan. 562, 565, 731 P.2d 871 (1987).

87. Cited; admission of forensic examiner's testimony in rape (K.S.A. 21-3502) case upheld. State v. Stukey, 242 Kan. 204, 205, 747 P.2d 137 (1987).

88. Cited; testifying physician's reliance on medical evidence of other physicians in workers compensation case (K.S.A. 44-519) examined. Boeing Military Airplane Co. v. Enloe, 13 Kan. App. 2d 128, 131, 764 P.2d 462 (1988).

89. Cited; testimony of case worker in sodomy (K.S.A. 21-3506) trial where no belief or opinion expressed as to victim's story examined. State v. Wade, 244 Kan. 136, 144, 766 P.2d 811 (1989).

90. 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).

91. Extent of expert witness' opinion so as not to invade province of jury examined. State v. Graham, 246 Kan. 78, 785 P.2d 983 (1990).

92. Expert witness' testimony regarding child's testimony and ability to distinguish truth from lie as permissible examined. State v. Colwell, 246 Kan. 382, 391, 790 P.2d 430 (1990).

93. Qualifications of witness to give expert testimony on outage at nuclear power plant examined. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 14 Kan. App. 2d 527, 537, 794 P.2d 1165 (1990).

94. Testimony regarding reliability of marijuana identification test as opposed to testimony showing test results examined. State v. Fuller, 15 Kan. App. 2d 34, 36, 802 P.2d 599 (1990).

95. Question of expert testimony examined where road maintenance worker killed by oncoming vehicle. Sterba v. Jay, 249 Kan. 270, 282, 816 P.2d 379 (1991).

96. Admission or exclusion of expert testimony; limitations; trial court discretion. Marshall v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., 249 Kan. 620, 625, 631, 822 P.2d 591 (1991).

97. 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).

98. Witness had requisite expertise to testify based on education, training, experience and current responsibilities. Wahwasuck v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 250 Kan. 606, 615, 828 P.2d 923 (1992).

99. Use of lay testimony concerning inflation examined. Tamplin v. Star Lumber and Supply Co., 16 Kan. App. 2d 352, 362, 364, 824 P.2d 219 (1992).

100. Court's instruction on M'Naghten rule indicating defendant's medical experts expressed a different view of the law examined. State v. Ji, 251 Kan. 3, 26, 832 P.2d 1176 (1992).

101. Admissibility of testimony by mental health therapist as to truth of minor victim's story within sound discretion of trial court. State v. Arrington, 251 Kan. 747, 751, 840 P.2d 477 (1992).

102. Defendant's statements made during psychiatric examination not hearsay where statements used to establish basis for expert opinion. State v. Humphrey, 252 Kan. 6, 14, 845 P.2d 592 (1992).

103. Cited where trial court's finding it was not in child's best interests to order blood tests in paternity suit reversed. Jensen v. Runft, 252 Kan. 76, 79, 843 P.2d 191 (1992).

104. No abuse of discretion in determination of police officer's expertise in the area of gangs. State v. Tran, 252 Kan. 494, 501, 502, 847 P.2d 680 (1993).

105. Error to allow opinion testimony of police in criminal trial as to their belief that defendant was guilty. State v. Steadman, 253 Kan. 297, 303, 855 P.2d 919 (1993).

106. Nature of expert testimony based on continuing recalculations examined. Hurlbut v. Conoco, Inc., 253 Kan. 515, 529, 856 P.2d 1313 (1993).

107. Disclosure statements of plaintiff's expert witness examined in claim filed under FELA; relaxed standard of proof of causation noted. Knowles v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 18 Kan. App. 2d 608, 612, 856 P.2d 1352 (1993).

108. Whether experimental test shooting conditions were similar enough to occurrence to be relevant examined. State v. Pennington, 254 Kan. 757, 760, 869 P.2d 624 (1994).

109. Trial court's refusal to allow expert testimony on deviation from standard of care in medical malpractice case examined. Smith v. Milfeld, 19 Kan. App. 2d 252, 254, 869 P.2d 748 (1994).

110. Whether strict application of the rules of evidence apply to sentencing proceedings examined. State v. Sims, 256 Kan. 533, 545, 887 P.2d 72 (1994).

111. Whether expert testimony in administrative license suspension is inadmissible because requirements of subsection (b) were not satisfied examined. Corder v. Kansas Board of Healing Arts, 256 Kan. 638, 889 P.2d 1127 (1994).

112. 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).

113. Whether court abused discretion by qualifying doctor to testify as expert witness concerning rape trauma syndrome examined. State v. Willis, 256 Kan. 837, 839, 888 P.2d 839 (1995).

114. Whether court abused discretion by admitting doctor's expert testimony on cause of death in murder trial examined. State v. Lumbrera, 257 Kan. 144, 157, 891 P.2d 1096 (1995).

115. Criminal investigator's training and experience sufficient to testify as blood spatter expert. State v. Haddock, 257 Kan. 964, 986, 897 P.2d 152 (1995).

116. Expert testimony regarding lost profits excluded as unreliable, untimely hearsay. Olathe Mfg., Inc. v. Browning Mfg., 259 Kan. 735, 761, 769, 915 P.2d 86 (1996).

117. Trial court did not abuse discretion by allowing pathologist to testify concerning victim's cause of death. State v. Shaw, 260 Kan. 396, 398, 921 P.2d 779 (1996).

118. Trial court refusal to allow expert testimony as to customs and industry standards in products liability case upheld. Simon v. Simon, 260 Kan. 731, 734, 924 P.2d 1255 (1996).

119. Erroneous admission of expert witness allowed to testify concerning matters within jurors' experience ruled harmless error. State v. Rice, 261 Kan. 567, 590, 932 P.2d 981 (1997).

120. Officer's expert opinion testimony as to defendant's intoxication allowable based on personal observations and expertise as police officer. City of Dodge City v. Hadley, 262 Kan. 234, 240, 936 P.2d 1347 (1997).

121. Trial court abused discretion by failing to allow opinion testimony by nonexpert witness. Moore v. Associated Materials & Supply Co., 263 Kan. 226, 245, 948 P.2d 652 (1997).

122. Erroneous admission of expert testimony concerning characteristics of typical offender constituted harmless error. State v. Smallwood, 264 Kan. 69, 80, 955 P.2d 1209 (1998).

123. 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).

124. Appellants failed to provide sufficient record to review claim witness should have been cross-examined concerning expert opinions. Floyd v. General Motors Corp., 25 Kan. App. 2d 71, 76, 960 P.2d 763 (1998).

125. Expert witness may interpret technical facts but may not pass on weight of evidence. State v. Struzik, 269 Kan. 95, 5 P.3d 502 (2000).

126. Frye test does not apply to pure opinion testimony; experts may testify concerning their observations and opinions without first showing general acceptance of such. Kuhn v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 270 Kan. 443, 14 P.3d 1170 (2000).

127. Experienced nurse in sexual assault office of hospital's emergency room may give expert testimony as to cause of victim's injuries. State v. Humphrey, 30 Kan. App. 2d 16, 36 P.3d 844 (2001).

128. Testimony regarding use of class B fireworks and firing of such from mortar tubes was expert in nature and was properly excluded; doctrine of negligence per se inapplicable. Pullen v. West, 278 Kan. 183, 92 P.3d 584 (2004).

129. Lay witness opinion testimony limited to what may be rationally based on perception of witness. State v. McFadden, 34 Kan. App. 2d 473, 122 P.3d 384 (2005).

130. Prosecutors question on redirect not prosecutorial misconduct where defendant asked similar questions on cross-examination. State v. Baker, 281 Kan. 997, 1012, 135 P.3d 1098 (2006).

131. Adequate foundation not presented to allow witness to give opinion testimony. State v. Lawrence, 281 Kan. 1081, 1088, 135 P.3d 1211 (2006).

132. Expert's reliance for opinion based upon information prepared by or obtained from other sources constitutes an opinion based on hearsay and is inadmissible. State v. Gonzalez, 282 Kan. 73, 94, 95, 145 P.3d 18 (2006).

133. Failure to call expert witness not error where expert's testimony would not aid jury. State v. Moody, 35 Kan. App. 2d 547, 564, 132 P.3d 985 (2006).

134. Appellate court will review the admissibility of expert opinion testimony, but will not reweigh the credibility of witnesses. Warren v. Heartland Automotive Services, Inc., 36 Kan. App. 2d 758, 761, 144 P.3d 73 (2006).

135. Mentioned in discussion of admissibility of relevant habit evidence. State v. Hunt, 285 Kan. 855, 865, 866, 176 P.3d 183 (2008).

136. Cited; witness' opinion on premeditation had no bearing on jury's ability to understand and was improper. State v. Crum, 286 Kan. 145, 153, 184 P.3d 222 (2008).

137. Mentioned; expert testimony admitted even though expert committed a discovery order violation. State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, 831, 190 P.3d 207 (2008).

138. Cited; district court abused discretion in admitting expert testimony regarding behavior of people addicted to crack cocaine; new trial. State v. Hughes, 286 Kan. 1010, 1026, 191 P.3d 268 (2008).

139. School psychologist's testimony found not to be lay opinion under subsection (a); improper foundation for expert opinion. State v. Bloomquist, 39 Kan. App. 2d 101, 114, 178 P.3d 42 (2008).

140. Cited; no abuse of discretion in admitting expert's opinion about what was required for road access. Davenport Pastures v. Board of Morris County Comm'rs, 40 Kan. App. 2d 648, 660, 194 P.3d 1201 (2008).

141. Cited; district court order in limine violated, this and other prosecutor's error required new trial. State v. Morris, 40 Kan. App. 2d 769, 781, 196 P.3d 422 (2008).

142. Cited; expert testimony must be based on reasonably accurate data and not simply based on unsupported assumption. Kuxhausen v. Tillman Partners, 40 Kan. App. 2d 930, 932, 942, 943, 197 P.3d 859 (2008).

143. Under case facts, respondent's stipulation dispensed with usual prerequisite of admission or records relied upon by expert. In re Care & Treatment of Colt, 289 Kan. 234, 211 P.3d 797 (2009).

144. Admission of expert testimony in medical malpractice action upheld on appeal. Munoz v. Clark, 41 Kan. App. 2d 56, 199 P.3d 1283 (2009).

145. Defendant's objection to child specialist as expert witness rejected. State v. Gaona, 41 Kan. App. 2d 1064, 208 P.3d 308 (2009).

146. Expert's testimony assisted the jury in understanding technical facts or material evidence. Foster v. Klaumann, 42 Kan. App. 2d 634, 216 P.3d 671 (2009).

147. District court's limiting of certain expert testimony part of the balancing of the evidentiary rules. State v. Wells, 289 Kan. 1219, 221 P.3d 561 (2009).

148. Expert's opinion testimony within the parameters allowed. State v. Ulate, 42 Kan. App. 2d 971, 219 P.3d 841 (2009).

149. Appelate review of admissiblity of opinion testimony discussed. State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 235 P.3d 436 (2010).

150. Testimony of general behavioral traits of sexual abuse victims is admissible. State v. Reyna, 290 Kan. 666, 234 P.3d 761 (2010).

151. Allergist's opinion of personal injury plaintiff's symptoms totally lacking in factual basis and nothing more than speculation. Kuxhausen v. Tillman Partners, 291 Kan. 314, 241 P.3d 75 (2010).

152. Emergency room doctor unqualified to testify on issue of commission of rape. State v. Tully, 293 Kan. 176, 262 P.3d 314 (2011).

153. Witness who was not identified as an expert must be treated as a lay witness. Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage v. City of Manhattan, 294 Kan. 60, 274 P.3d 609 (2012).

154. No abuse of discretion by the district court found in considering the HGN test results at the suppression hearing for the limited purpose of determining the officer's reasonable suspicion. City of Wichita v. Molitar, 46 Kan. App. 2d 958, 268 P.3d 498 (2012).

155. Expert witness is found to be qualified to testify regarding forensic interviews of children but not characteristics of victims of child sexual abuse. State v. Gaona, 293 Kan. 930, 270 P.3d 1165 (2012).

156. Officer was a qualified expert to render opinion of "drug jargon" or code words used by individuals in the sale of drugs under the facts of case. State v. James, 48 Kan. App. 2d 310, 288 P.3d 504 (2012).

157. Lay witnesses may give their opinions as to the mental states of others under certain conditions. State v. Lowrance, 298 Kan. 274, 312 P.3d 328 (2013).

158. Animated reconstruction video admissible as expert's opinion allowed to the point that requires credibility of witnesses or weight of the disputed evidence. State v. Horton, 300 Kan. 477, 486, 331 P.3d 752 (2014).

159. District court did not abuse its discretion by excluding expert witness testimony when nothing in the record connected witness experience to witness opinion evidence. Smart v. BNSF Ry. Co., 52 Kan. App. 2d 486, 500, 369 P.3d 966 (2016).

160. District judge allowing witness to testify to monetary value of damage to motorcycle as layperson opinion testimony was not an abuse of discretion. State v. Sasser, 305 Kan. 1231, 1246-47, 391 P.3d 698 (2017).

161. A forensic interview was admissible because the interviewer was not offering testimony, testifying or offering an opinion. State v. Ballou, 310 Kan. App. 2d 591, 607, 448 P.3d 479 (2019).

162. An expert witness is not required to demonstrate every theory, principle or scientific discipline underlying the knowledge, skill, experience, training or education that qualifies the expert to testify. State v. Claerhout, 310 Kan. 924, 934-935, 453 P.3d 855 (2019).

163. A district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding medical expert testimony as unreliable under the Daubert test. State v. Lyman, 311 Kan. 1, 29, 455 P.3d 393 (2020).

164. Agent testified as a lay witness providing opinion testimony that was professional but not expert opinion. State v. Willis, 312 Kan. 127, 138-41, 475 P.3d 324 (2020).

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov