Printable Format60-246. Objections to rulings or orders. A formal exception to a ruling or order is unnecessary. When the ruling or order is requested or made a party need only state the action that it wants the court to take or objects to, along with the grounds for the request or objection. Failing to object does not prejudice a party who had no opportunity to do so when the ruling or order was made.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-246; L. 2010, ch. 135, ยง 116; July 1.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Form and admissibility of evidence, see 60-243(a).
Objections to instructions to jury, when waived, see 60-251(b).
Harmless error by court or parties, see 60-261.
Erroneous admission of evidence, objection required, see 60-404.
Erroneous exclusion of evidence, duty of proponent, see 60-405.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Federal Habeas Corpus and the State Prisoner," Michael L. Maxwell, 8 W.L.J. 248, 258 (1969).
"Objections," Laurence Rose, 2 J.K.T.L.A. No. 3, 18, 19 (1978).
"KADC Files Amicus Brief in Support of Joint Defense and Common Interest Privilege," Greg A. Drumright and Michael G. Jones, K.D.J. Spring (2008).
"Lawyers in the Middle: Three-Way Tension Among Lawyers, Clients and Fee-payers," J. Nick Badgerow, K.D.J. Spring (2007).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. No prejudicial error in admission of evidence; defendant failed to state specific ground of objection. State v. Parker, 213 Kan. 229, 232, 516 P.2d 153.
2. Under facts and circumstances, admission of evidence of prior criminal conviction not prejudicial error. State v. Moore, 218 Kan. 450, 455, 543 P.2d 923.
3. Relative appealing juvenile court decision under K.S.A. 38-834 bound by contemporaneous objection to evidence rule. In re Collins, 3 Kan. App. 2d 585, 586, 598 P.2d 1075.
4. Admissibility of report on similar gas explosion permitted for limited purpose of showing notice regarding hazardous installation. Kearney v. Kansas Public Service Co., 233 Kan. 492, 497, 498, 665 P.2d 757 (1983).
5. Sufficiency of objection to statements in defense counsel's closing argument regarding defendant/doctor's responsibility and judgment examined. Sledd v. Reed, 246 Kan. 112, 785 P.2d 694 (1990).
6. Party made known to court the objection to action of court and grounds therefor. Robinson v. McBride Bldg. Co., 16 Kan. App. 2d 120, 122, 123, 818 P.2d 1184 (1991).