Kansas evidence practice is organized under the Kansas Rules of Evidence. Relevance starts at Kan. R. Evid. 401, 403; hearsay starts at Kan. R. Evid. 801, 802. That is what separates Kansas evidence law from a generic national summary. Read Kansas Rules of Evidence before the background sections below. Authenticity is a separate fight under Kan. R. Evid. 901, 902. Depositions at trial: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-232 and Kan. R. Civ. P. 60-32 govern civil deposition use at trial. Criminal discovery follows Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3212; deposition testimony at trial requires a hearsay exception such as Kan. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Character evidence
Character evidence in Kansas is governed by Kan. R. Evid. 404, 405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
Kansas character-evidence opinions
State of Kansas v. Terry L. Bowen
State of Kansas v. Terry L. Bowen, 299 Kan. 339 (2014)
…court’s admission into evidence of his prior sex crimes for propensity purposes; (3) alleged insufficient evidence as to each alternative means of aiding and abetting in one rape count; (4) the district court’s delivery of a written response to a jury question outside of Bowen’s presence; (5) cumulative trial error; and (6) an illegal sentence that ordered him not to have conta…
Kansas opinions such as State of Kansas v. Terry L. Bowen are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "court’s admission into evidence of his prior sex crimes for propensity purposes; (3) alleged insufficient evidence as to each alternative means of aiding and abetting in one rape count; (4) the district court’s delivery of a written response to a jury question outside of Bowen’s" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Christopher A. Belone, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Christopher A. Belone, Appellant, 51 Kan. App. 2d 179 (2015)
…is motion for a mistrial based on the admission of improper character evidence; (6) the State violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by failing to disclose exculpatoiy evidence prior to trial; and (7) the district court erred by using his prior convictions to increase his sentence without requiring them to be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. We address…
On character evidence, State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Christopher A. Belone, Appellant speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "State violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by failing to disclose exculpatoiy evidence prior to trial; and (7) the district court erred by using his prior convictions to increase his sentence without requiring them to be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kenneth BOYSAW, Appellant.
STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kenneth BOYSAW, Appellant., 439 P.3d 909 (2019)
…ates, Report of the Judicial Conference on the Admission of Character Evidence in Certain Sexual Misconduct Cases , 159 F.R.D. 51 , 53 (1995) (noting that the advisory committee believed the above position to be "arguable"). Nevertheless, without specifically deciding the issue, this court has continued to require a weighing of probative value versus prejudicial effect. See, e.…
On character evidence, STATE of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kenneth BOYSAW, Appellant. speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "Report of the Judicial Conference on the Admission of Character Evidence in Certain Sexual Misconduct Cases , 159 F.R.D. 51 , 53 (1995) (noting that the advisory committee believed the above position to be 'arguable')." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Lafayette D. E. Cosby, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Lafayette D. E. Cosby, Appellant, 285 Kan. 230 (2007)
…oducing evidence of the victim’s prior convictions, arguing character evidence about the victim was irrelevant because the defendant’s claim of self-defense was not supported by the evidence. The State also argued that, even if evidence would justify a self-defense instruction, the victim’s reputation for violence could only come into evidence through general opinion testimony,…
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Lafayette D. E. Cosby, Appellant is worth reading on Kansas character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "oducing evidence of the victim’s prior convictions, arguing character evidence about the victim was irrelevant because the defendant’s claim of self-defense was not supported by the evidence. The State also argued that, even if evidence would justify a self-defense instruction, t" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. George
State v. George, 466 P.3d 469 (2020)
…attorney did not argue any grounds relating to impeachment, character evidence, or the like. We find this objection insufficient for appellate review of this issue now claimed. See Garcia-Garcia, 309 Kan. at 810. To evade this preservation problem, George frames the issue as one of prosecutorial error rather than as an evidentiary ruling. But this cannot save his claim. We 12 d…
On character evidence, State v. George speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "We find this objection insufficient for appellate review of this issue now claimed. See Garcia-Garcia, 309 Kan. at 810. To evade this preservation problem, George frames the issue as one of prosecutorial error rather than as an evidentiary ruling. But this cannot save his claim." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael P. Davidson, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael P. Davidson, Appellant, 264 Kan. 44 (1998)
…f any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial. III. CHARACTER EVIDENCE Davidson argues his due process right to a fair trial was violated because the court “excluded evidence of the deceased’s reputation for and propensity for violence” by not allowing Davidson to cross-examine Eric Dodson, a State’s witness, as to specific instances of Shalamar’s violent conduct. Where…
Kansas opinions such as State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael P. Davidson, Appellant are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Davidson to cross-examine Eric Dodson, a State’s witness, as to specific instances of Shalamar’s violent conduct." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Chris Kuone, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Chris Kuone, Appellant, 243 Kan. 218 (1988)
…ny of Rogers and the Smiths based upon its conclusions that character evidence in the form of the opinion of lay witnesses is inadmissible and that the evidence lacked probative value. On appeal, the State argues that the basis for the exclusion of the opinion testimony in the present case was a lack of foundation. However, lack of foundation was not the basis upon which the op…
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Chris Kuone, Appellant is worth reading on Kansas character evidence because the court put the point in its own words: "Rogers and the Smiths based upon its conclusions that character evidence in the form of the opinion of lay witnesses is inadmissible and that the evidence lacked probative value." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in Kansas are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under Kan. R. Evid. 801, 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
Kansas hearsay opinions
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles C. Logsdon, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles C. Logsdon, Appellant, 304 Kan. 3 (2016)
…or a mistrial (which were based on the admission of certain hearsay evidence). The court took effective remedial action to prevent the juiy from considering some hearsay. And the remaining hearsay was either not objected to or was admissible under at least one hearsay exception. None of tire hearsay statements violated Logsdons constitutional right to confront witnesses. Third,…
On hearsay, State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles C. Logsdon, Appellant speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "The court took effective remedial action to prevent the juiy from considering some hearsay. And the remaining hearsay was either not objected to or was admissible under at least one hearsay exception." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Craig M. Bryant, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Craig M. Bryant, Appellant, 272 Kan. 1204 (2002)
…ror by admitting a statement from Malcolm Pink, through the hearsay testimony of Gale Pink, in which Pink asked Bryant why he killed the victims. Bryant contends that it was error for the trial court to permit the evidence in under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rules. He argues the statement did not constitute res gestae, and even if it did, the rule should be abrogat…
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Craig M. Bryant, Appellant is worth reading on Kansas hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "Malcolm Pink, through the hearsay testimony of Gale Pink, in which Pink asked Bryant why he killed the victims. Bryant contends that it was error for the trial court to permit the evidence in under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rules." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Roger Drach, Appellant, v. Louis Bruce and State of Kansas, Appellees
Roger Drach, Appellant, v. Louis Bruce and State of Kansas, Appellees, 281 Kan. 1058 (2006)
…behalf and that his convictions were based on inadmissible hearsay evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause. We disagree and affirm. Roger Drach was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated battery with great bodily harm, and criminal possession of weapons in connection with the death of his wife, Deanne Drach. A summary of the facts giving rise to th…
Roger Drach, Appellant, v. Louis Bruce and State of Kansas, Appellees is worth reading on Kansas hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "Confrontation Clause. We disagree and affirm. Roger Drach was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, aggravated battery with great bodily harm, and criminal possession of weapons in connection with the death of his wife, Deanne Drach." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Brett T. Seacat, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Brett T. Seacat, Appellant, 303 Kan. 622 (2016)
…er K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-455(b) that consists of or includes hearsay evidence must pass the K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-460 requirements for admissibility of hearsay. 2. In a prosecution for homicide, in order to present evidence of a deceased's declarations or threats suggesting a suicidal disposition, a defendant must show that the declarations or threats were made within such a reas…
On hearsay, State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Brett T. Seacat, Appellant speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-455(b) that consists of or includes hearsay evidence must pass the K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 60-460 requirements for admissibility of hearsay. 2." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Larry Humphery, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Larry Humphery, Appellant, 267 Kan. 45 (1999)
…or to trial, the judge ruled the TIPS call was inadmissible hearsay. Also, during the trial, the court ruled that Blood’s direct examination testimony was not such that could allow the TIPS call to be admitted on cross-examination. Blood testified that he believed Simmons was a prostitute who had solicited Sedore. He stated it was a common occurrence for a prostitute to escort…
Practitioners open State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Larry Humphery, Appellant when Kansas hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "TIPS call was inadmissible hearsay. Also, during the trial, the court ruled that Blood’s direct examination testimony was not such that could allow the TIPS call to be admitted on cross-examination. Blood testified that he believed Simmons was a prostitute who had solicited Sedore." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Nancy Bratt and Dennis Bratt, Appellants
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Nancy Bratt and Dennis Bratt, Appellants, 250 Kan. 264 (1992)
…ch defendant claims the trial judge improperly (1) admitted hearsay statements of the child-victim witness in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and § 10 of the Kansas Bill of Rights; (2) permitted testimony concerning the child’s actions and statements by use of anatomical dolls; (3) excluded expert testimony concerning the unreliability of testimony…
On hearsay, State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Nancy Bratt and Dennis Bratt, Appellants speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "ch defendant claims the trial judge improperly (1) admitted hearsay statements of the child-victim witness in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and § 10 of the Kansas Bill of Rights; (2) permitted testimony concerning the child’s actions and statements" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In the Matter of Mary P.
In the Matter of Mary P., 237 Kan. 456 (1985)
…s made by the children concerning the alleged sexual abuse. Hearsay evidence is ordinarily inadmissible, but certain exceptions to that rule are fixed by statute. K.S.A. 60-460(dd) is the statutory exception here involved. It reads as follows: "Evidence of a statement which is made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing offered to prove the truth of the matter…
Kansas opinions such as In the Matter of Mary P. are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Hearsay evidence is ordinarily inadmissible, but certain exceptions to that rule are fixed by statute. K.S.A. 60-460(dd) is the statutory exception here involved." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. Kansas treats them under Kan. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
Kansas party-admission opinions
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kevin W. Gunby, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kevin W. Gunby, Appellant, 282 Kan. 39 (2006)
…ted first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Admission of Testimony Regarding Prior Violence The district judge admitted Adriano’s and Malin’s testimonies about Sharp’s stories of a previous violent incident or incidents between her and Gunby as “evidence of a discordant relationship preexisting the incident relating to death.” In addition, the district judge sai…
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kevin W. Gunby, Appellant is worth reading on Kansas party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "Testimony Regarding Prior Violence The district judge admitted Adriano’s and Malin’s testimonies about Sharp’s stories of a previous violent incident or incidents between her and Gunby as “evidence of a discordant relationship preexisting the incident relating to death." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles C. Logsdon, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles C. Logsdon, Appellant, 304 Kan. 3 (2016)
…Logs-don’s motions for a mistrial (which were based on the admission of certain hearsay evidence). The court took effective remedial action to prevent the juiy from considering some hearsay. And the remaining hearsay was either not objected to or was admissible under at least one hearsay exception. None of tire hearsay statements violated Logsdons constitutional right to confr…
On party admissions, State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles C. Logsdon, Appellant speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "Logs-don’s motions for a mistrial (which were based on the admission of certain hearsay evidence). The court took effective remedial action to prevent the juiy from considering some hearsay." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Olin L. Coones, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Olin L. Coones, Appellant, 301 Kan. 64 (2014)
…(1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) erroneous admission of hearsay testimony concerning a confrontation between Coones and Kathleen a few days before the murder; (3) prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) cumulative error. We affirm the conviction. Coones also challenges the constitutionality of his hard 50 sentence, which was imposed under K.S.A. 21-4635, as violating…
Practitioners open State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Olin L. Coones, Appellant when Kansas party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Coones and Kathleen a few days before the murder; (3) prosecutorial misconduct; and (4) cumulative error. We affirm the conviction. Coones also challenges the constitutionality of his hard 50 sentence, which was imposed under K.S.A." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Lafayette Damon Ester Cosby, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Lafayette Damon Ester Cosby, Appellant, 293 Kan. 121 (2011)
…ies in reviewing a district court’s decision involving tile admission or exclusion of evidence is guided by the level of discretion that the district court could exercise in making that decision under Kansas law. For example, [State v.] Gunby [,282 Kan. 38, 144 P.3d 647 (2006),] explained that *127when the ‘legal basis’ of the district court’s decision is raised on appeal, appe…
On party admissions, State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Lafayette Damon Ester Cosby, Appellant speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "Kansas law. For example, [State v.] Gunby [,282 Kan. 38, 144 P." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Sharon K. Carr, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Sharon K. Carr, Appellant, 265 Kan. 608 (1998)
…inued to swell, and she died from her injuries 4 days after admission to the hospital. In an interview with police, the defendant first stated that Shayleen had rolled out of bed and fallen. The defendant told police that Shayleen never wanted to take her afternoon nap, and at times the defendant would have to hold Shayleen’s arms on the bed until Shayleen fell asleep. She also…
Kansas opinions such as State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Sharon K. Carr, Appellant are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "In an interview with police, the defendant first stated that Shayleen had rolled out of bed and fallen." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Vaccaro M. Stano, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Vaccaro M. Stano, Appellant, 284 Kan. 126 (2007)
…e exclusion of his exculpatory statement to police; (2) the admission of preliminary hearing testimony at trial of an unavailable witness; (3) the trial court’s failure to provide a cautionary instruction concerning informants’ testimony; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. We have considered the defendant’s claims, find no reversible error occurred, and a…
Kansas opinions such as State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Vaccaro M. Stano, Appellant are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "e exclusion of his exculpatory statement to police; (2) the admission of preliminary hearing testimony at trial of an unavailable witness; (3) the trial court’s failure to provide a cautionary instruction concerning informants’ testimony; and (4) prosecutorial misconduct during c" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
A concrete Kansas scenario
Here is one way the Kansas pieces fit together. Change any fact and the statute may point somewhere else.
A lawyer in Kansas wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under Kan. R. Evid. 401, 403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test Kan. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) before the hearsay definition in Kan. R. Evid. 801, 802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in Kan. R. Evid. 803(6) and the treatment purpose in Kan. R. Evid. 803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet Kan. R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then authenticate every exhibit under Kan. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Kansas keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the Kansas Rules of Evidence. Winning one does not win the others.
Business records
The business-records exception under Kan. R. Evid. 803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
Kansas business-records opinions
In the Matter of the Estate of Esther R. Broderick, Deceased
In the Matter of the Estate of Esther R. Broderick, Deceased, 34 Kan. App. 2d 695 (2005)
…s: “A subpoena duces tecum which commands the production of business records in an action in which the business is not a party shall inform the person to whom it is directed that the person may serve upon the attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to production of any or all of tire business records designated in the subpoena within 14 days after the service of t…
Kansas opinions such as In the Matter of the Estate of Esther R. Broderick, Deceased are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "s: “A subpoena duces tecum which commands the production of business records in an action in which the business is not a party shall inform the person to whom it is directed that the person may serve upon the attorney designated in the subpoena written objection to production of" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Diversified Financial Planners, Inc., Appellee, v. Joseph A. Maderak, Appellant
Diversified Financial Planners, Inc., Appellee, v. Joseph A. Maderak, Appellant, 248 Kan. 946 (1991)
…that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence of business records; and that Diversified was not a holder in due course and, thus, is subject to any and all defenses of defendant. 1. Abuse of Discretion Maderak concedes that rulings on motions to strike defenses rest in the sound discretion of the trial court. Bobo v. Mutual of Omaha Mutual Benefit Health & Accident A…
Practitioners open Diversified Financial Planners, Inc., Appellee, v. Joseph A. Maderak, Appellant when Kansas business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Diversified was not a holder in due course and, thus, is subject to any and all defenses of defendant. 1. Abuse of Discretion Maderak concedes that rulings on motions to strike defenses rest in the sound discretion of the trial court. Bobo v." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Earl Wilson, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Earl Wilson, Appellant, 215 Kan. 437 (1974)
…ine.” The state argues the records are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. (K.S.A. 60-460 [m].) Officer Vogel admitted he had no personal knowledge of the disciplinary incidents to which he testified, but relied upon the records before him. There was no proper foundation laid for admission of those records under the business records exception to…
On business records, State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Earl Wilson, Appellant speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "The state argues the records are admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. (K.S.A. 60-460 [m].) Officer Vogel admitted he had no personal knowledge of the disciplinary incidents to which he testified, but relied upon the records before him." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
In the Interest of N.D.G., a minor child, DOB 7-28-84, and J.J.G., a minor child, DOB 1-18-86
…Parkview records were admitted by the trial court under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 60-460(m). J.G. argues that the trial court erred in admitting the Parkview records because the records contained “hearsay within hearsay” and because J.G. had no opportunity to cross-examine those whose opinions were expressed within the records. There…
On business records, In the Interest of N.D.G., a minor child, DOB 7-28-84, and J.J.G., a minor child, DOB 1-18-86 speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "Parkview records were admitted by the trial court under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 60-460(m). J.G. argues that the trial court erred in admitting the Parkview records because the records contained “hearsay within hearsay” and because J.G." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Marcus Wilson, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Marcus Wilson, Appellant, 11 Kan. App. 2d 504 (1986)
…identify the phone records. “The admission into evidence of business records falls within the exception to the hearsay rule governed by K.S.A. 60-460(m) which provides for the admission of‘writings offered as memoranda or records of acts, conditions or events to prove the facts stated therein, if the judge finds that they were made in the regular course of a business at or abou…
Practitioners open State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Marcus Wilson, Appellant when Kansas business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The admission into evidence of business records falls within the exception to the hearsay rule governed by K.S.A." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Michelle R. West, Appellant, v. Todd R. Martin, Appellee
Michelle R. West, Appellant, v. Todd R. Martin, Appellee, 11 Kan. App. 2d 55 (1986)
…to overcome the hearsay rule and gain admissibility is the “business records” exception, K.S.A. 60-460(m). Much of the report is not simply a compilation or storage of information or data supplied by the plaintiff. Computer-generated evidence in the form of computer printouts such as bank statements is a common example of the latter. The case law pertaining to computer-generate…
Kansas opinions such as Michelle R. West, Appellant, v. Todd R. Martin, Appellee are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "K.S.A. 60-460(m). Much of the report is not simply a compilation or storage of information or data supplied by the plaintiff. Computer-generated evidence in the form of computer printouts such as bank statements is a common example of the latter." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Olathe Ready-Mix Co., Inc., Appellee (Plaintiff), v. Gary Frazier, Gary's Construction and Kansas Utilities, Inc
…urt erred in admitting into evidence certain of plaintiff’s business records without identification by their custodian. At the trial Lewis Thompson, an employee of plaintiff in charge of business accounts, identified certain records as invoices on shipments of concrete made from plaintiff to defendant. Defendant objected to their admission on the ground that Thompson was not th…
Olathe Ready-Mix Co., Inc., Appellee (Plaintiff), v. Gary Frazier, Gary's Construction and Kansas Utilities, Inc is worth reading on Kansas business records because the court put the point in its own words: "At the trial Lewis Thompson, an employee of plaintiff in charge of business accounts, identified certain records as invoices on shipments of concrete made from plaintiff to defendant." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of William N. Quary
In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of William N. Quary, 50 Kan. App. 2d 296 (2014)
…e State says the underlying documents were authenticated as business records, as provided in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60-460(m), and, therefore, constituted admissible hearsay. But that proposition fails in two ways. First, the State relied on affidavits of the custodians of the records from both the Department of Corrections and Larned Hospital submitted with the documents in respons…
On business records, In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of William N. Quary speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "State says the underlying documents were authenticated as business records, as provided in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 60-460(m), and, therefore, constituted admissible hearsay. But that proposition fails in two ways." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in Kansas trial practice.
Excited utterance — Kan. R. Evid. 803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — Kan. R. Evid. 803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — Kan. R. Evid. 803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under Kan. R. Evid. 804(a), Kansas opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under Kan. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under Kan. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
Kansas dying-declaration opinions
The State of Kansas v. J. C. Wilson
The State of Kansas v. J. C. Wilson, 24 Kan. 189 (1880)
…aid preliminary examination. “4th. In admitting the alleged dying declarations of the deceased, without sufficient foundation; without requiring the best evidence; and because deceased’s testimony under oath had been given to the jury.” The first two objections may be considered together. It *191appears that Mr. Ady took part in the trial of the case at the request of Mr. Reid,…
Kansas opinions such as The State of Kansas v. J. C. Wilson are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "In admitting the alleged dying declarations of the deceased, without sufficient foundation; without requiring the best evidence; and because deceased’s testimony under oath had been given to the jury.” The first two objections may be considered together. It *191appears that Mr." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The State of Kansas v. John J. Medlicott
The State of Kansas v. John J. Medlicott, 9 Kan. 257 (1872)
…that case it is decided that the court ruled correctly. 3. Dying declarations; writings,’etc/" admissibility. III. The next error alleged is the admission in evidence of the entry in the book marked “Kansas Tribune,” on pages 18 and 19, as a dying declaration of Ruth. It was in testimony that the wife of deceased had on the 26th of April gone to Leavenworth; that the book wag…
On dying declaration, The State of Kansas v. John J. Medlicott speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "Dying declarations; writings,’etc/' admissibility. III. The next error alleged is the admission in evidence of the entry in the book marked “Kansas Tribune,” on pages 18 and 19, as a dying declaration of Ruth." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael A. Reed, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael A. Reed, Appellant, 302 Kan. 390 (2015)
…judge ruled that Barnes’ statements qualified as admissible dying declarations. Specifically, the district judge said: “Vincent Barnes’ statements are reliable, they are voluntary. The evidence— there’s no evidence of any coercion. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. . . . [Barnes’] statements are the result of a question by an officer and his—and his sister, but there’s…
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Michael A. Reed, Appellant is worth reading on Kansas dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "Barnes’ statements qualified as admissible dying declarations. Specifically, the district judge said: “Vincent Barnes’ statements are reliable, they are voluntary. The evidence— there’s no evidence of any coercion. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. . . ." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Eric Jones, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Eric Jones, Appellant, 287 Kan. 559 (2008)
…d in admitting the deceased victim’s hearsay statement as a dying declaration; (2) whether the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument; and (3) whether the district court committed clear error in failing to instruct the jury on certain lesser included offenses. Finding no reversible error, we affirm Jones’ conviction. FACTUAL OVERVIEW The sequence of e…
Kansas opinions such as State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Eric Jones, Appellant are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Finding no reversible error, we affirm Jones’ conviction." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
The State of Kansas v. Barney Bohan
The State of Kansas v. Barney Bohan, 15 Kan. 407 (1875)
…r a change of venue, and second, in admitting the so-called dying declaration of William N. Anderson in evidence. Did the court err in refusing to order a change of venue? The application was supported by the affidavits of the appellant, the sheriff, and the acting jailor of the county. These affidavits made out a prima fade case for removal, but the state read a great number (…
Kansas opinions such as The State of Kansas v. Barney Bohan are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "William N. Anderson in evidence. Did the court err in refusing to order a change of venue?" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Fern McDonnell v. Swift & Company
Fern McDonnell v. Swift & Company, 124 Kan. 327 (1927)
…A part of the material evidence in the case consisted of a dying declaration made by McDonnell to his wife, the plaintiff herein. In view of former decisions (Thurston v. Fritz, 91 Kan. 468, 138 Pac. 625; Vassar v. Swift & Co., 106 Kan. 836, 189 Pac. 943; Helm v. Railway Co., 109 Kan. 48, 196 Pac. 426), it is not seriously contended that the evidence was improperly admitted be…
Practitioners open Fern McDonnell v. Swift & Company when Kansas dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "A part of the material evidence in the case consisted of a dying declaration made by McDonnell to his wife, the plaintiff herein. In view of former decisions (Thurston v. Fritz, 91 Kan. 468, 138 Pac. 625; Vassar v. Swift & Co., 106 Kan. 836, 189 Pac. 943; Helm v. Railway Co." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The State of Kansas v. Patrick O'Shea
The State of Kansas v. Patrick O'Shea, 60 Kan. 772 (1899)
…are deemed to be sufficient were made to every part of the dying declaration, and the contention is that many of the statements were mere hearsay conclusions, and such as cannot be shown in a dying declaration. There is good reason for the complaint that is made. Many of the statements are in relation to former transactions distinct from the act of killing. Some of them are ma…
On dying declaration, The State of Kansas v. Patrick O'Shea speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "There is good reason for the complaint that is made. Many of the statements are in relation to former transactions distinct from the act of killing." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
J. W. Thurston, as etc. v. Frank Fritz — Benson, J., dissenting
J. W. Thurston, as etc. v. Frank Fritz — Benson, J., dissenting, 91 Kan. 468 (1914)
Benson, J. (dissenting) : The rule that dying declarations are only admissible where the death of the declarant is the subject of the investigation is settled as firmly in the jurisprudence of this state as any rule can be which is not established by constitution or statute. Conceding that the rule should be changed, there is one obvious reason, without refe…
Kansas opinions such as J. W. Thurston, as etc. v. Frank Fritz — Benson, J., dissenting are cited where dying declaration is disputed. The court stated: "Benson, J. (dissenting) : The rule that dying declarations are only admissible where the death of the declarant is the subject of the investigation is settled as firmly in the jurisprudence of this state as any rule can be which is not established by constitution or statute." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Kan. R. Evid. 803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
Kansas medical-statement opinions
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Saul Arthur Miller, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Saul Arthur Miller, Appellant, 293 Kan. 535 (2011)
…testify that the primary purpose of her examination was for medical diagnosis or treatment. Based on the totality of these circumstances, the panel concluded that the primary purpose of the medical examination was to collect and preserve evidence for later use in the prosecution of a crime, not for medical diagnosis or treatment. Miller, 42 Kan. App. 2d at 28. In summary, the C…
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Saul Arthur Miller, Appellant is worth reading on Kansas medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "Based on the totality of these circumstances, the panel concluded that the primary purpose of the medical examination was to collect and preserve evidence for later use in the prosecution of a crime, not for medical diagnosis or treatment. Miller, 42 Kan. App. 2d at 28." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. William Bennington, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. William Bennington, Appellant, 293 Kan. 503 (2011)
…to a .hearsay exception for statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and also cited the following authorities: “Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 324, 129 S.Ct., at 2539-2540 (‘Business and public records are generally admissible absent confrontation not because they qualify under an exception to tire hearsay rules, but because — having been cr…
Practitioners open State of Kansas, Appellee, v. William Bennington, Appellant when Kansas medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 324, 129 S.Ct." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Howard Webb and Hanover Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Jack E. Lungstrum, Appellee
…easonable care on the part of a physician or surgeon in his medical diagnosis, his performance of surgical procedures and his care and treatment of patients. (Voss v. Bridwell, 188 Kan. 643, 659, 364 P.2d 955.) However, this rule does not give the members of the medical profession a monopoly on common sense, and the rule is limited to those matters clearly within the domain of…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, Howard Webb and Hanover Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Jack E. Lungstrum, Appellee speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "Voss v. Bridwell, 188 Kan. 643, 659, 364 P.2d 955." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Roger Laubach, Appellant, v. Ray Roberts, Warden of Ellsworth Correctional Facility; And David R. Mc-Kune, Warden of
…cted in May of 2000 suggested peripheral contraction but no medical diagnosis. In April of 2001, Dr. Reifschneider again examined the petitioner and found no objective cause for the petitioner’s claimed vision loss. The degree of cataract in the petitioner’s eyes diminished his vision to 20/50, but optico-ldnetic nystagmus and mirror tests indicated that the petitioner did fixa…
Roger Laubach, Appellant, v. Ray Roberts, Warden of Ellsworth Correctional Facility; And David R. Mc-Kune, Warden of is worth reading on Kansas medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "May of 2000 suggested peripheral contraction but no medical diagnosis. In April of 2001, Dr. Reifschneider again examined the petitioner and found no objective cause for the petitioner’s claimed vision loss." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Chris Darnell, Appellant, v. Charles Simmons, Et Al., Appellees
Chris Darnell, Appellant, v. Charles Simmons, Et Al., Appellees, 30 Kan. App. 2d 778 (2002)
…ing stomach pain and problems. Darnell has received regular medical diagnosis and treatment for these aliments from the staff at Prison Health Services (PHS)— the contract medical provider for Lansing. He has filed multiple grievances against medical personnel beginning in 1998. In 2000, Darnell filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1501, arguing the…
Kansas opinions such as Chris Darnell, Appellant, v. Charles Simmons, Et Al., Appellees are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Darnell has received regular medical diagnosis and treatment for these aliments from the staff at Prison Health Services (PHS)— the contract medical provider for Lansing. He has filed multiple grievances against medical personnel beginning in 1998." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Charles DAWSON, Appellee, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY F/K/A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, Appellant.
…tion to work plays no part in the analysis because a formal medical diagnosis is not required" and that Dawson's argument "that his treating doctors may not have given him causation opinions even if asked ... rings hollow because Dawson did obtain those opinions from treating doctors in order to offer them at trial." We reject BNSF's arguments. First, it is not true that "the r…
Practitioners open Charles DAWSON, Appellee, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY F/K/A Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, Appellant. when Kansas medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Dawson's argument 'that his treating doctors may not have given him causation opinions even if asked ... rings hollow because Dawson did obtain those opinions from treating doctors in order to offer them at trial.' We reject BNSF's arguments." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Stacy Lee Kuxhausen, Appellant, v. Tillman Partners, L.P., Appellees
Stacy Lee Kuxhausen, Appellant, v. Tillman Partners, L.P., Appellees, 40 Kan. App. 2d 930 (2008)
…when deciding whether to allow testimony about an emerging medical diagnosis. In State v. Marks, 231 Kan. 645, 654, 647 P.2d 1292 (1982), the court upheld the district court’s admission of expert testimony from a psychiatrist about rape-trauma syndrome because a review of medical literature showed that it was “generally accepted to be a common reaction to sexual assault.” Simi…
Practitioners open Stacy Lee Kuxhausen, Appellant, v. Tillman Partners, L.P., Appellees when Kansas medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "In State v. Marks, 231 Kan. 645, 654, 647 P." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jesse Joseph Villanueva, Jr., Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jesse Joseph Villanueva, Jr., Appellant, 274 Kan. 20 (2002)
…er did not have the professional qualifications to render a medical diagnosis and should not have been allowed to give diagnostic testimony while informing the jury with a wink and a nod she was precluded from naming the disorder.” 29 Kan. App. 2d at 942. Villanueva asserts that the Court of Appeals did not apply the harmless error analysis when it concluded that “under the tot…
Kansas opinions such as State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jesse Joseph Villanueva, Jr., Appellant are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "er did not have the professional qualifications to render a medical diagnosis and should not have been allowed to give diagnostic testimony while informing the jury with a wink and a nod she was precluded from naming the disorder.” 29 Kan. App. 2d at 942. Villanueva asserts that" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Use of depositions at trial
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-232 and Kan. R. Civ. P. 60-32 govern civil deposition use at trial. Criminal discovery follows Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3212; deposition testimony at trial requires a hearsay exception such as Kan. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
Kansas deposition / former-testimony opinions
State v. Keys
State v. Keys, 510 P.3d 706 (2022)
…of the case. 2 10. Under the facts here, before admitting a deposition into evidence at trial, a court must make a finding the witness is (1) unavailable because the witness is out of the state and his or her appearance cannot be obtained, unless the offering party procured the witness' absence, or (2) the offering party is unable to procure the attendance of the witness by sub…
Practitioners open State v. Keys when Kansas deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "of the case. 2 10. Under the facts here, before admitting a deposition into evidence at trial, a court must make a finding the witness is (1) unavailable because the witness is out of the state and his or her appearance cannot be obtained, unless the offering party procured the w" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Edwin Willis, Jr., Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Edwin Willis, Jr., Appellant, 254 Kan. 119 (1993)
…ndant’s right to confront a witness who appears at trial by deposition and the appropriate hard 40 sentencing instruction under K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4625(6). We also comment on the admission of photos of the victim, the absence of an instruction on involuntary manslaughter, and the interplay of instructing on mitigating and aggravating factors during a hard 40 sentencing hearin…
Kansas opinions such as State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Edwin Willis, Jr., Appellant are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "ndant’s right to confront a witness who appears at trial by deposition and the appropriate hard 40 sentencing instruction under K.S.A. 1992 Supp. 21-4625(6). We also comment on the admission of photos of the victim, the absence of an instruction on involuntary manslaughter, and t" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Showalter
State v. Showalter, 543 P.3d 508 (2024)
…itting autopsy photographs into evidence, (2) admitting the deposition of an unavailable witness into evidence, and (3) admitting certain statements made by one of Showalter's co-conspirators into evidence. Showalter also contends the cumulative effect 1 of these alleged errors violated his constitutional right to a fair trial. But Showalter failed to preserve his objections to…
On deposition / former testimony, State v. Showalter speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "Showalter's co-conspirators into evidence. Showalter also contends the cumulative effect 1 of these alleged errors violated his constitutional right to a fair trial." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Darrell J. Staab, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Darrell J. Staab, Appellant, 230 Kan. 329 (1981)
…me. The other version, testified to by Rae Ann Power in her deposition, was that Staab showed up at the park, this time with a pistol stuffed in the front of his trousers. Marjorie and Gary Mayfield saw Staab approaching and left for home prior to his arrival at the party in order to avoid a confrontation. Mrs. Power told her husband about the gun, after which they also hurried…
Kansas opinions such as State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Darrell J. Staab, Appellant are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "The other version, testified to by Rae Ann Power in her deposition, was that Staab showed up at the park, this time with a pistol stuffed in the front of his trousers." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Athen D. Phifer, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Athen D. Phifer, Appellant, 241 Kan. 233 (1987)
…ted, is hearsay evidence and inadmissible except: *236 “(c) Depositions and prior testimony. Subject to the same limitations and objections as though the declarant were testifying in person, (1) testimony in the form of a deposition taken in compliance with the law of this state for use as testimony in the trial of the action in which offered or (2) if the judge finds that the…
On deposition / former testimony, State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Athen D. Phifer, Appellant speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "ted, is hearsay evidence and inadmissible except: *236 “(c) Depositions and prior testimony. Subject to the same limitations and objections as though the declarant were testifying in person, (1) testimony in the form of a deposition taken in compliance with the law of this state" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State of Kansas v. Kingsley Uwadia
State of Kansas v. Kingsley Uwadia, 47 Kan. App. 2d 829 (2012)
…ion for new trial. He argues the court erred in finding the deposition statute was not violated and trial counsel was not ineffective. We affirm. Uwadia was charged with criminal threat against Joel Womochil, Edward Jones, Eugene R. Williams, and Shawn Madsen, stemming from an incident at a Sedgwick County nightclub. Before trial, the State moved for admission of Womochil’s vid…
Practitioners open State of Kansas v. Kingsley Uwadia when Kansas deposition / former testimony turns on the distinction in this sentence: "He argues the court erred in finding the deposition statute was not violated and trial counsel was not ineffective. We affirm. Uwadia was charged with criminal threat against Joel Womochil, Edward Jones, Eugene R." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Showalter
…er the K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 60-460(c)(2) hearsay exception for depositions and prior testimony, the party seeking to introduce the deposition or prior testimony must show it acted in good faith and made a diligent effort to secure the witness' attendance at trial. 2. The K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 60-460(c)(1) hearsay exception for depositions does not require a showing of unavailability,…
On deposition / former testimony, State v. Showalter speaks to the Kansas dispute in this passage: "K.S.A. 2022 Supp. 60-460(c)(2) hearsay exception for depositions and prior testimony, the party seeking to introduce the deposition or prior testimony must show it acted in good faith and made a diligent effort to secure the witness' attendance at trial. 2. The K.S.A. 2022 Supp." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Robinson
…ian Dr. Matthew Robbinett examined L.C.'s right eye. In his deposition, Dr. Robbinett explained that L.C. sustained an orbital wall fracture and a corneal abrasion, which could cause infection or permanent double vision and require surgery. Dr. Robbinett said L.C. told him that her baby's father hit her. He recalled that the nurse's notes showed L.C. had a history of abuse and…
Kansas opinions such as State v. Robinson are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "Dr. Matthew Robbinett examined L.C.'s right eye. In his deposition, Dr. Robbinett explained that L.C. sustained an orbital wall fracture and a corneal abrasion, which could cause infection or permanent double vision and require surgery. Dr. Robbinett said L.C." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under Kan. R. Evid. 901, 902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
Kansas agricultural, oil-and-gas, and DUI cases turn on authenticated lab reports, land records, and body-camera footage under Kan. R. Evid. 901–902.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every Kansas trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for Kansas trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
Kansas authenticity opinions
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles E. Rives, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles E. Rives, Appellant, 220 Kan. 141 (1976)
…rd (exhibit 6). He says none was sufficiently identified or authenticated and, additionally, an adequate chain of custody was not shown as to the note: A few general rules may be stated. The admissibility of physical evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, to be determined on the basis of relevance of the evidence and its connection with the accused and the…
Kansas opinions such as State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Charles E. Rives, Appellant are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "He says none was sufficiently identified or authenticated and, additionally, an adequate chain of custody was not shown as to the note: A few general rules may be stated." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Annie P. Calloway v. W. S. Cooley
Annie P. Calloway v. W. S. Cooley, 50 Kan. 743 (1893)
…land was situate. That court determined that it was a duly-authenticated copy of the will which had been executed, proved and admitted to probate according to the laws of North Carolina; that the authentication was in due form of law and entitled to full faith and credit; and, having found these facts, admitted it to record. The plaintiffs contest both the applicability and th…
Annie P. Calloway v. W. S. Cooley is worth reading on Kansas authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "North Carolina; that the authentication was in due form of law and entitled to full faith and credit; and, having found these facts, admitted it to record." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Gina L. Waufle, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Gina L. Waufle, Appellant, 9 Kan. App. 2d 68 (1983)
…mages to Bev Klein’s golf cart, because the estimate lacked authentication and was hearsay. K.S.A. 60-464 states the general rule requiring authentication: “Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence. Authentication may be by evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of its authenticity or by any other means provided by law.” In the present cas…
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Gina L. Waufle, Appellant is worth reading on Kansas authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "Bev Klein’s golf cart, because the estimate lacked authentication and was hearsay. K.S.A. 60-464 states the general rule requiring authentication: “Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kevin J. Strickland, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kevin J. Strickland, Appellant, 23 Kan. App. 2d 615 (1997)
…vidence on the grounds that the documents were not properly authenticated. The documents were certified by the clerk of the district court in Grant County, Oklahoma, but were not accompanied by the certificates required to authenticate documents from other states. See K.S.A. 60-465(4). The trial court acknowledged the documents were not authenticated, but ruled that based upon…
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Kevin J. Strickland, Appellant is worth reading on Kansas authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "The documents were certified by the clerk of the district court in Grant County, Oklahoma, but were not accompanied by the certificates required to authenticate documents from other states. See K.S.A. 60-465(4)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Jesse Cooper, Adm'r v. Silas Armstrong
Jesse Cooper, Adm'r v. Silas Armstrong, 4 Kan. 30 (1865)
…ich a party has a right to inspect, may be proved by a duly authenticated copybut such copy must be an examined copy, duly made, and sworn to by a competent witness. *34• The document offered in evidence, hy the plaintiff in this case, was not such as would come within the meaning of the descriptions here used, nor would the testimony of the witness help the matter materially,…
Kansas opinions such as Jesse Cooper, Adm'r v. Silas Armstrong are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "ich a party has a right to inspect, may be proved by a duly authenticated copybut such copy must be an examined copy, duly made, and sworn to by a competent witness. *34• The document offered in evidence, hy the plaintiff in this case, was not such as would come within the meanin" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Frankie Boyd, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Frankie Boyd, Appellant, 27 Kan. App. 2d 956 (2000)
…, arguing that the documents from Wyoming were not properly authenticated. The trial court allowed testimony about the incident and allowed the documents to be entered into evidence. During the trial, Judge Burdette became ill. Judge Sieve stepped in and presided over the trial. Boyd objected and moved for a mistrial. The motion was denied. Judge Sieve stated that if the need a…
Practitioners open State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Frankie Boyd, Appellant when Kansas authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Wyoming were not properly authenticated. The trial court allowed testimony about the incident and allowed the documents to be entered into evidence. During the trial, Judge Burdette became ill. Judge Sieve stepped in and presided over the trial." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jackie Lee White, Appellant
State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jackie Lee White, Appellant, 23 Kan. App. 2d 363 (1997)
…of seven years.” Neither letter is certified, attested, or authenticated and neither are the attachments. Neither letter is accompanied by a certificate stating that the officer who signed the letter has custody of the records. What is apparent from reading the records is that these letters and the record attached to the letter of April 22, 1994, are the only evidence which cu…
Kansas opinions such as State of Kansas, Appellee, v. Jackie Lee White, Appellant are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "Neither letter is certified, attested, or authenticated and neither are the attachments. Neither letter is accompanied by a certificate stating that the officer who signed the letter has custody of the records." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under Kan. R. Evid. 901, 902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent Kansas appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
General standards of admissibility
Kansas starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under Kan. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Kansas integrates some evidence provisions in Kan. Stat. Ann. ch. 60 alongside the court rules. Verify the Kansas Judicial Branch rule pamphlet for updates.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in Kansas?
Kansas applies the Kansas Rules of Evidence. Kansas adopted FRE-based rules; Kan. R. Evid. 401–902 govern evidentiary questions in district courts with numbering aligned to federal practice.
How do Kansas courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under Kan. R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in Kansas?
Party-opponent statements under Kan. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under Kan. R. Evid. 803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in Kansas?
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-232 and Kan. R. Civ. P. 60-32 govern civil deposition use at trial. Criminal discovery follows Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3212; deposition testimony at trial requires a hearsay exception such as Kan. R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. Kansas authenticity practice starts with Kan. R. Evid. 901, 902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under Kan. R. Evid. 804(b)(2) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under Kan. R. Evid. 803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.