Law Review and Bar Journal References:

Legislature changed portions of Judicial Council's draft of section, "Highlights of the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure (1963)," Spencer A. Gard, 2 W.L.J. 199, 213 (1962).

Survey of law of evidence, Spencer A. Gard, 12 K.L.R. 239, 254 (1963).

Cited with reference to admitting evidence of mental state, M. C. Slough, 13 K.L.R. 197, 208 (1964).

Legislative emphasis on surprise should not preclude judge's discretion rejecting relevant evidence when substantial danger of prejudice, confusion of issues, or undue consumption of time, "Other Vices, Other Crimes: An Evidentiary Dilemma," M. C. Slough, 20 K.L.R. 411, 428, 429 (1972).

The legal effect of jury answers to special verdict questions under Kansas comparative negligence law, David E. Pierce, 16 W.L.J. 114, 122, 123 (1976).

"Hearsay Explaining Police Actions: The Proper Objection," Russell M. Coombs, 46 J.B.A.K. 157, 160, 166 (1977).

"Other Vices, Other Crimes: K.S.A. 60-455 Revisited," M. C. Slough, 26 K.L.R. 161, 164, 172, 173 (1978).

"Evidence of Other Crimes in Kansas," Randall K. Rathbun and Chad M. Renn, 17 W.L.J. 98, 99 (1977).

"Motion in Limine: A Mandatory Pre-Trial Motion in Civil Litigation," Mark Hutton, 4 J.K.T.L.A. No. 5, 9 (1981).

"Evidence of Alcohol/Drug Intoxication and Usage," Randall Rathbun, 6 J.K.T.L.A. No. 4, 23, 24 (1983).

"Evidence: Settlement Offers Not Relevant For Mitigating Punitive Damages," James B. Albertson, 23 W.L.J. 452, 457 (1984).

"Kansas Recognizes Rape Trauma Syndrome," Charles H. Herd, 24 W.L.J. 653, 656 (1985).

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

"Res Gestae Raises Its Ugly Head," Dennis D. Prater and Virginia M. Klemme, 65 J.K.B.A. No. 8, 24 (1996).

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

"Other Misconduct Evidence," Christopher M. Joseph, 49 K.L.R. 145 (2000).

"The First Line of Defense: A Practitioner's Guide to Motions in Limine," William J. Pauzauskie, J.K.T.L.A. Vol. XXIV, No. 3, 8 (2001).

"A Criminal Defendant's Inability to Sue His Lawyer for Malpractice: The Other Side of the Exoneration Rule [Canaan v. Bartee, 72 P.3d 911 (Kan. 2003)]," Amy L. Leisinger, 44 W.L.J. 693 (2005).

"Turning a Blind Eye to Justice: Kansas Courts Must Integrate Scientific Research Regarding Eyewitness Testimony into the Courtroom," Bethany Shelton, 56 K.L.R. 949 (2008).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Cited in discussing cross-examination of defendant's character witness; preliminary inquiry in absence of jury required, when. State v. Hinton, 206 Kan. 500, 508, 479 P.2d 910.

2. Mentioned in determining rights of condemner in eminent domain proceeding (dissenting opinion). City of Bonner Springs v. Coleman, 206 Kan. 689, 698, 481 P.2d 950.

3. Evidence of prior rapes admissible as relevant to charge of forcible rape; no element of surprise. State v. Masqua, 210 Kan. 419, 422, 423, 502 P.2d 728.

4. Cited; evidence of past crime; probative value must outweigh prejudicial effect even though evidence relevant. State v. Davis, 213 Kan. 54, 57, 59, 515 P.2d 802.

5. No error in admission into evidence of ring worn by defendant. State v. Lora, 213 Kan. 184, 193, 515 P.2d 1086.

6. Evidence admitted bearing evidence of another crime not error. State v. Winston, 214 Kan. 525, 529, 520 P.2d 1204.

7. Section mentioned in discussion of the admission of a prior conviction pursuant to K.S.A. 60-455. State v. Cross, 216 Kan. 511, 518, 532 P.2d 1357.

8. Applied; trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding evidence; action on insurance policies proving coverage for uninsured motorists. Van Hoozer v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 219 Kan. 595, 613, 549 P.2d 1354.

9. Applied; evidence of collateral facts in criminal prosecution sufficiently relevant; admissible; discretion. State v. Baker, 219 Kan. 854, 858, 549 P.2d 911.

10. Applied; admission of journal entry of previous conviction upheld; no abuse of discretion. State v. Faulkner, 220 Kan. 153, 158, 159, 551 P.2d 1247.

11. Admission of certain evidence pertaining to prior civil wrongs held proper. Hubin v. Shira, 1 Kan. App. 2d 203, 204, 208, 209, 563 P.2d 1079.

12. Exclusion of medical records from hospital in attractive nuisance action upheld. Talley v. J & L Oil Co., 224 Kan. 214, 220, 579 P.2d 706.

13. No error in court's failure to exclude evidence hereunder where connection of the evidence to accused and crime is well established. State v. Nicholson, 225 Kan. 418, 420, 590 P.2d 1069.

14. Motion in limine discussed in detail; guidelines for use spelled out. State v. Quick, 226 Kan. 308, 311, 597 P.2d 1108.

15. Conviction of second degree murder affirmed; trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain evidence. State v. Egbert, 227 Kan. 266, 270, 606 P.2d 1022.

16. No abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to admit evidence the probative value of which was outweighed by chance of prejudicing jury. Schaeffer v. Kansas Dept. of Transportation, 227 Kan. 509, 518, 608 P.2d 1309.

17. Trial judge does have discretion to exclude evidence if its probative value is outweighed by unfair and harmful surprise. State v. Reynolds, 230 Kan. 532, 536, 639 P.2d 461 (1982).

18. Trial judge in murder case did not abuse discretion in admitting testimony concerning a bruise mark on the murder victim. State v. Costello, 231 Kan. 337, 339, 342, 343, 644 P.2d 447 (1982).

19. No abuse of discretion to exclude evidence where chance of prejudicing jury outweighs probative value. Powers v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 234 Kan. 89, 101, 671 P.2d 491 (1983).

20. Probative value of opinion testimony by attorney for state's witness outweighed prejudicial effect. State v. Richard, 235 Kan. 355, 362, 681 P.2d 612 (1984).

21. Statement in physician's office records not improperly excluded where made five years before automobile accident. Doty v. Wells, 9 Kan. App. 2d 378, 380, 682 P.2d 672 (1984).

22. Admission of subsequent statements by defendant concerning possible violence relevant to intent when alleged threats made. State v. Abu-Isba, 235 Kan. 851, 858, 685 P.2d 856 (1984).

23. Question reserved merely attacking adverse decision on evidentiary question does not meet standard of statewide interest. State v. Brown, 236 Kan. 800, 802, 696 P.2d 954 (1985).

24. Trial court's limiting expert witness' testimony to prior deposition after unannounced visit to defendant's hospital thoughtful resolution of surprise issue. Hagedorn v. Stormont-Vail Regional Med. Center, 238 Kan. 691, 697, 715 P.2d 2 (1986).

25. Cited; third of three-pronged standard for admissibility of prior crimes (K.S.A. 60-455) discussed. State v. Breazeale, 238 Kan. 714, 723, 714 P.2d 1356 (1986).

26. Cited; exclusion of lay witness testimony regarding defendant's good character as inadmissible and lacking probative value examined. State v. Kuone, 243 Kan. 218, 231, 757 P.2d 289 (1988).

27. Probate value of evidence of prior narcotics convictions and testimony concerning circumstances as outweighing prejudicial effect examined. State v. Graham, 244 Kan. 194, 199, 768 P.2d 259 (1989).

28. Denial of witness' cross-examination on issue of business relationship with prosecutor examined. State v. Jones, 13 Kan. App. 2d 520, 527, 775 P.2d 183 (1989).

29. Late endorsement of witness as unfair surprise to defendant examined. State v. Damewood, 245 Kan. 676, 685, 783 P.2d 1249 (1989).

30. Attempted rape victim's propensity to form social acquaintances with men on spontaneous basis as habit v. character trait examined. State v. Gonzales, 245 Kan. 691, 701, 783 P.2d 1239 (1989).

31. Exclusion of admissible evidence where prejudicial to accused under certain conditions noted in concurring opinion. State v. Osby, 246 Kan. 621, 634, 793 P.2d 243 (1990).

32. When evidence regarding prior civil wrongs (K.S.A. 60-455) admissible examined; factors to be considered by trial court in ruling upon admissibility examined. Brunett v. Albrecht, 248 Kan. 634, 638, 810 P.2d 276 (1991).

33. Probative value of evidence versus unfair and harmful surprise to defendant examined. State v. Ji, 251 Kan. 3, 14, 832 P.2d 1176 (1992).

34. Admissibility of acts constituting crime that has been expunged examined where act may be relevant to fact in issue. Pope v. Ransdell, 251 Kan. 112, 129, 833 P.2d 965 (1992).

35. Trial court's refusal to allow doctor to testify upheld where same doctor improperly barred by previous judge ten months earlier. Curry v. Klein, 251 Kan. 670, 675, 840 P.2d 443 (1992).

36. Probative value versus unfair and harmful surprise examined. State v. Cooper, 252 Kan. 340, 347, 845 P.2d 631 (1993).

37. Cited in upholding trial court's discretion in resolving balance of probative value and prejudice potential; evidence of gang affiliation. State v. Tran, 252 Kan. 494, 504, 847 P.2d 680 (1993).

38. No abuse of district court's discretion in admission of evidence where probative value of evidence out-weighed prejudice potential. State v. Kingsley, 252 Kan. 761, 770, 851 P.2d 370 (1993).

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

40. Whether probative value of surprise discovery of advertising brochure and correspondence outweighed prejudicial effect examined. Hurlbut v. Conoco, Inc. 253 Kan. 515, 533, 856 P.2d 1313 (1993).

41. Whether the probative value of motive evidence outweighed prejudice and surprise examined. McKissick v. Frye, 255 Kan. 566, 580, 876 P.2d 1371 (1994).

42. Whether court erred by admitting photographs showing unused safety devices at accident scene taken two years after accident examined. Smith v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 256 Kan. 90, 122, 883 P.2d 1120 (1994).

43. Probative value of gang membership as proof of witness bias outweighed possible prejudicial effect. State v. Knighten, 260 Kan. 47, 53, 917 P.2d 1324 (1996).

44. Evidence of public censure of doctor for providing false information in unrelated matter inadmissible in malpractice suit. Shirley v. Smith, 261 Kan. 685, 698, 933 P.2d 651 (1997).

45. Trial court's admission of good character evidence of murder victim held harmless error. State v. Galloway, 268 Kan. 682, 1 P.3d 844 (2000).

46. Evidence of gang membership admissible to show motive or witness bias. State v. Ross, 280 Kan. 878, 127 P.3d 249 (2006).

47. Relevancy discussed; court has discretion to exclude relevant evidence outweighed by prejudicial effect. State v. Scott-Herring, 284 Kan. 172, 176, 159 P.3d 1028 (2007).

48. Testimony excluded that although relevant and admissible, was more prejudicial than probative. State v. Cosby, 285 Kan. 230, 250, 169 P.3d 1128 (2007).

49. Mentioned; whether admissibility of evidence of other crimes has probative value not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. State v. Hampton, 38 Kan. App. 2d 209, 212, 162 P.3d 840 (2007).

50. Mentioned in case involving interlocutory appeal not authorized by K.S.A. 22-3603, speedy trial requirement violated; case dismissed. State v. Mitchell, 285 Kan. 1070, 1074, 179 P.3d 394 (2008).

51. District court upheld in granting motion to bar several of defendant's damage claims as untimely or inadequately disclosed. U.S.D. No. 232 v. CWD Investments, 288 Kan. 536, 205 P.3d 1245 (2009).

52. Defendant's argument that testimony should have been excluded is rejected; no timely objection. State v. Richmond, 289 Kan. 419, 212 P.3d 165 (2009).

53. Multi-step evidentiary analysis is required for appellate review of motion in limine. State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 235 P.3d 436 (2010).

54. Gang evidence is generally admissible if relevant. State v. Jones, 295 Kan. 804, 286 P.3d 562 (2012).

55. In considering the risk of undue prejudice from evidence of other acts of sexual misconduct, the district court should consider: (1) The likelihood that the evidence will contribute to an improperly based jury verdict; (2) whether the evidence will distract the jury from the central trial issues; and (3) how time-consuming considering the evidence will be. State v. Satchell, 311 Kan. 633, 643, 466 P.3d 459 (2020).

56. In considering the probative value of evidence of other acts of sexual misconduct, the district court should consider: (1) How clearly the prior acts were proved; (2) how probative the evidence is of the material fact sought to be proved; (3) how seriously disputed the material fact is; and (4) whether the government can obtain any less-prejudicial evidence. State v. Satchell, 311 Kan. 633, 641, 466 P.3d 459 (2020).