KANSAS OFFICE of
  REVISOR of STATUTES

This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov


 
   

 




60-422. Further limitations on admissibility of evidence affecting credibility. As affecting the credibility of a witness (a) in examining the witness as to a statement made by him or her in writing inconsistent with any part of his or her testimony it shall not be necessary to show or read to the witness any part of the writing provided that if the judge deems it feasible the time and place of the writing and the name of the person addressed, if any, shall be indicated to the witness; (b) extrinsic evidence of prior contradictory statements, whether oral or written, made by the witness, may in the discretion of the judge be excluded unless the witness was so examined while testifying as to give him or her an opportunity to identify, explain or deny the statement; (c) evidence of traits of his or her character other than honesty or veracity or their opposites, shall be inadmissible; (d) evidence of specific instances of his or her conduct relevant only as tending to prove a trait of his or her character, shall be inadmissible.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-422; January 1, 1964.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Admissibility of evidence, generally, see 60-243, 60-406, 60-407.

Discretion of judge to exclude evidence, see 60-445.

Character in issue, manner of proof, see 60-446.

Character trait as proof of conduct, see 60-447.

Character trait for care or skill, see 60-448.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

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

"Survey of Kansas Law: Evidence," Spencer A. Gard, 16 K.L.R. 125, 126, 132 (1967).

"Other Vices, Other Crimes: An Evidentiary Dilemma," M. C. Slough, 20 K.L.R. 411, 415 (1972).

"Evidence of Other Crimes in Kansas," Randall K. Rathbun and Chad M. Renn, 17 W.L.J. 98, 102 (1977).

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

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

"An ounce of Prevention...," Robert W. Parnacott, 68 J.K.B.A. No. 10, 36 (1999).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

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

2. Admissibility of evidence of bad conduct affecting credibility. State v. Taylor, 198 Kan. 290, 293, 294, 295, 296, 424 P.2d 612.

3. Limitations on admissibility of evidence affecting credibility considered. Thompson v. Norman, 198 Kan. 436, 444, 424 P.2d 593.

4. Court rejected testimony for impeachment purposes; no evidence of relation of facts. Bingham v. Hillcrest Bowl, Inc., 199 Kan. 40, 47, 427 P.2d 591.

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

6. Cited in discussing admissibility of evidence of prior convictions. Tucker v. Lower, 200 Kan. 1, 3, 4, 434 P.2d 320.

7. Improper cross-examination; competency of council questioned; denial of fair trial discussed (dissenting opinion). State v. Wright, 203 Kan. 54, 59, 453 P.2d 1.

8. Subsection (d) cited in case concerning evidence of injuries resulting from operation of an emergency vehicle. Scogin v. Nugen, 204 Kan. 568, 576, 464 P.2d 166.

9. When contradictory statements are introduced in evidence for the purpose of impeaching a witness, the presence of the defendant when the contradictory statements were made is not necessary to make the statements admissible, since the purpose of showing them is not to bind the defendant but to impeach the witness. State v. Potts, 205 Kan. 47, 51, 468 P.2d 74.

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

11. Adulterous behavior and immoral conduct not admissible for purpose of attacking credibility of witness. Staudinger v. Sooner Pipe & Supply Corporation, 208 Kan. 101, 107, 490 P.2d 619.

12. Defendant charged with procuring abortion; inquiry into premarital sex relations of complaining witness inadmissible. State v. Darling, 208 Kan. 469, 470, 477, 493 P.2d 216.

13. Attempt by state to admit taped statement for impeachment; no error as court sustained objection at trial. State v. Campbell, 210 Kan. 265, 283, 500 P.2d 21.

14. Subsection (b) mentioned; unavailable witness; recorded testimony and impeaching statement at former trial properly admitted. State v. Ford, 210 Kan. 491, 496, 502 P.2d 786.

15. Inadmissible and prejudicial evidence introduced without objection; similar evidence allowable if needed to remove unfair prejudice. Dewey v. Funk, 211 Kan. 54, 57, 505 P.2d 722.

16. Section contains no provision requiring foundation to use impeaching prior statement; failure to allow impeachment was error. Smith v. Blakey, Administrator, 213 Kan. 91, 99, 515 P.2d 1062.

17. Cited in determining drug offenses per se do not involve dishonesty or false statement; inadmissible under K.S.A. 60-421 as affecting credibility. State v. Belote, 213 Kan. 291, 295, 516 P.2d 159.

18. Evidence regarding witness' homosexuality necessary to support defense theory improperly excluded under subsection (c). State v. Reed, 213 Kan. 557, 561, 516 P.2d 913.

19. Applied; evidence of drug use inadmissible for purpose of discrediting witness. State v. Nix, 215 Kan. 880, 885, 529 P.2d 147.

20. Evidence of prior conviction of witness for impeachment purpose upheld; K.S.A. 60-421 construed. State v. Laughlin, 216 Kan. 54, 56, 530 P.2d 1220.

21. Admission of evidence concerning success of state's witness in securing convictions in unrelated case held error. State v. Steger, 216 Kan. 534, 537, 532 P.2d 1115.

22. Applied; exclusion of evidence of specific instances of prior misconduct of complainant proper. State v. Humphrey, 217 Kan. 352, 364, 537 P.2d 155.

23. Adjudication of delinquency involving dishonesty or false statement constitutes conviction of crime within meaning of K.S.A. 60-421; admissibility. State v. Deffenbaugh, 217 Kan. 469, 474, 536 P.2d 1030.

24. Claim of self-incrimination held without merit; conflicting statements of defendants as to whereabouts at time of trial admissible. State v. Donahue, 218 Kan. 351, 353, 543 P.2d 962.

25. Evidence of wrongdoing where no conviction resulted went solely to credibility; inadmissible. State v. Johnson, 219 Kan. 847, 852, 549 P.2d 1370.

26. No abuse of discretion by trial court in determining extent and limitation on extrinsic evidence; tests. State v. Hall, 220 Kan. 712, 716, 556 P.2d 413.

27. Testimony of one specific past instance of an alleged altercation properly excluded. State v. Woods, 222 Kan. 179, 187, 563 P.2d 1061.

28. Evidence offered for sole purpose of attacking credibility of witness inadmissible. State v. Smallwood, 223 Kan. 320, 326, 327, 574 P.2d 1361.

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

30. Admission of evidence concerning defendant's intoxication at time of accident upheld; comparative negligence action. Miles v. West, 224 Kan. 284, 288, 580 P.2d 876.

31. Conviction of aggravated robbery and other crimes reversed; exclusion of prior written inconsistent statement prejudicial error. State v. Murrell, 224 Kan. 689, 692, 693, 585 P.2d 1017.

32. Statute held inapplicable; no error in allowing memoranda to refresh recollection of witness. State v. Wright, 4 Kan. App. 2d 196, 199, 603 P.2d 1034.

33. Prior ill treatment or threats toward wife is admissible evidence. State v. Wood, 230 Kan. 477, 479, 638 P.2d 908 (1982).

34. Trial court did not abuse discretion or commit error for refusing to play tapes to jury of witness's inconsistent and contradictory statements. State v. Schlicher, 230 Kan. 482, 492, 493, 639 P.2d 467 (1982).

35. Appeal from aggravated sodomy conviction; no error in not admitting evidence of ten-year old victim's consent or morality. State v. Aldrich, 232 Kan. 783, 784, 658 P.2d 1027 (1983).

36. Where defense had ample opportunity to address inconsistencies between officers' testimony and written reports, no abuse of discretion in excluding them. State v. Heiskell, 8 Kan. App. 2d 667, 675, 666 P.2d 207 (1983).

37. Extrinsic evidence of prior contradictory statements admissible where witness has opportunity to identify, explain or deny. State v. Hobson, 234 Kan. 133, 148, 671 P.2d 1365 (1983).

38. Evidence showing procedures used by defendant doctor in treating another has nothing to do with credibility. Cleveland v. Wong, 237 Kan. 410, 419, 420, 701 P.2d 1301 (1985).

39. Due process not violated where defendant made different statement at trial and prosecutor impeached him with prior inconsistent statement. State v. Falke, 237 Kan. 668, 682, 703 P.2d 1362 (1985).

40. Where impeachment questions and responses assumed improper, error harmless if substantial rights not prejudiced. Hagedorn v. Stormont-Vail Regional Med. Center, 238 Kan. 691, 700, 701, 715 P.2d 2 (1986).

41. Compared with K.S.A. 60-420, where court prejudicially excluded evidence which put accomplice's credibility in doubt. State v. Davis, 237 Kan. 155, 160, 697 P.2d 1321 (1985).

42. Reversible error in excluding testimony proffered by appellant for purpose of impeaching credibility of a state's witness. State v. Macomber, 241 Kan. 154, 158, 159, 734 P.2d 1148 (1987).

43. Cited; exclusion of inconsistent statement in newspaper article as hearsay examined. State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629, 637, 740 P.2d 559 (1987).

44. Cited; finding that witness unable or unwilling to abide by oath as not permissible basis for excluding expert testimony examined. Jones v. Bordman, 243 Kan. 444, 458, 759 P.2d 953 (1988).

45. Under certain circumstances evidentiary restraints herein must yield to defendant's constitutional right of cross-examination. State v. Barber, 13 Kan. App. 2d 224, 227, 766 P.2d 1288 (1989).

46. Purpose of statute reviewed; soundness of discretion used by trial court examined. State v. Osby, 246 Kan. 621, 793 P.2d 243 (1990).

47. Admission of evidence that defense witness shared jail cell with defendant, reason for being in jail examined. State v. Wesson, 247 Kan. 639, 651, 802 P.2d 574 (1990).

48. Attack on witness' credibility with evidence of traits for honesty and veracity permitted only by opinion or reputation evidence. Herbstreith v. de Bakker, 249 Kan. 67, 76, 815 P.2d 102 (1991).

49. Whether court erred by denying defendant the opportunity to cross-examine witness regarding prior bad acts examined. State v. Rowell, 256 Kan. 200, 210, 883 P.2d 1184 (1994).

50. Trial court admission of testimony that witness had AIDS did not constitute reversible error. State v. Collier, 259 Kan. 346, 352, 913 P.2d 597 (1996).

51. Admission of evidence of defendant's previous self-assessment of veracity not an abuse of discretion. State v. Webber, 260 Kan. 263, 278, 918 P.2d 609 (1996).

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

53. Limiting cross-examination concerning diversion for theft to impeach witness character trait of veracity upheld. State v. Sanders, 263 Kan. 317, 320, 949 P.2d 1084 (1997).

54. Defendant's criminal history inadmissible as evidence of conviction of crime and as improper character evidence absent defendant's credibility being in issue by action of defendant. State v. Smith, 28 Kan. App. 2d 56, 11 P.3d 520 (2000).

55. Impeachment of witness by party calling witness must be based on contradictory, adverse statements not that witness did not testify as expected. State v. Manning, 270 Kan. 674, 19 P.3d 84 (2001).

56. Prior testimony properly admitted; witness had selective memory loss; prior inconsistent statements could be used to question credibility. State v. Carter, 278 Kan. 74, 91 P.3d 1162 (2004).

57. When defendant made a different statement at trial, prosecutor could properly impeach him with prior inconsistent statement. State v. Drayton, 285 Kan. 689, 708, 175 P.3d 861 (2008).

58. Cited; no reversible error in allowing state to play recorded statement after witness excused. State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 286, 287, 197 P.3d 337 (2008).

59. Failure to admit certain evidence and limiting defense counsel's cross examination held reversible error. State v. Scott, 39 Kan. App. 2d 49, 56, 57, 59, 177 P.3d 972 (2008).

60. Defendant failed to lay foundation relating to prior inconsistent statement. State v. Herrera, 41 Kan. App. 2d 215, 202 P.3d 68 (2009).

61. Witness credibility character evidence discussed; evidence of specific instances disallowed. State v. Penn, 41 Kan. App. 2d 251, 201 P.3d 752 (2009).

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

63. State used documents not admitted into evidence in the trial of sexually violent predator case; fair trial not provided. In re Care & Treatment of Ontiberos, 45 Kan. App. 2d 235, 247 P.3d 686 (2011).

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

65. Photographic evidence brought by defendant depicting victim performing oral sex on a third party in order to attack victim's credibility was properly excluded. State v. Wetrich, 49 Kan. App. 2d 34, 304 P.3d 346 (2013).

66. Kansas rules of evidence prohibit the introduction of extrinsic evidence on a prior lie, as well as cross-examination on the subject. Siefert v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty., 779 F.3d 1141, 1154 (10 th Cir. 2015).


 



This website has moved to KSRevisor.gov