Source or prior law:

L. 1909, ch. 182, § 581; R.S. 1923, 60-3317.

Cross References to Related Sections:

Harmless errors at any stage of proceedings to be disregarded, see 60-261.

Law Review and Bar Journal References:

"Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence," Vicki Kelly Brittain, 15 W.L.J. 176, 178 (1976).

"Bench Decisions and Opinion Writing," Robert H. Miller, 47 J.B.A.K. 247 (1978).

"Survey of Kansas Law: Criminal Law and Procedure," Keith G. Meyer, 27 K.L.R. 391, 427 (1979).

"Domestic Relations: Kansas Adopts Automatic Reduction of Child Support," Peggy A. McNeive, 19 W.L.J. 175, 179 (1979).

"Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument," Alan V. Johnson and Jeffrey S. Southard, 49 J.B.A.K. 205, 229, 232, 243 (1980).

"Silence Is Not Always Golden: Pre-Arrest and Post-Arrest Silence of Your Client," Laurence Rose, 4 J.K.T.L.A. No. 1, 14 16 (1980).

"Kansas Appellate Advocacy: An Inside View of Common-Sense Strategy," Patrick Hughes, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 2, 26 (1997).

CASE ANNOTATIONS

Prior law cases, see G.S. 1949, 60-3317 and the 1961 Supp. thereto.

1. Section applied; action for damages. Lightcap v. Mettling, 196 Kan. 124, 128, 409 P.2d 792.

2. Various technical errors and irregularities disregarded; liability for injury by domestic animal. Berry v. Kegans, 196 Kan. 388, 392, 411 P.2d 707.

3. Ignoring various mandatory provisions and requirements of injunction statutes not technical errors hereunder. Ostler v. Nickel, 196 Kan. 477, 480, 413 P.2d 303.

4. Supreme court empowered to render final judgment or direct its entry. Craig v. Craig, 197 Kan. 345, 349, 416 P.2d 297.

5. Action for loss of rights in land; no affirmative showing of error prejudicially affecting substantial rights. Connell v. Reno Construction Co., 197 Kan. 772, 776, 421 P.2d 8.

6. Cited in discussing admissibility of evidence under K.S.A. 60-421 and K.S.A. 60-422. Tucker v. Lower, 200 Kan. 1, 3, 6, 434 P.2d 320.

7. Court disregarded certain technical errors and irregularities; action to determine landlord's right to possession. Guy Pine, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 201 Kan. 371, 374, 440 P.2d 595.

8. Provisions invoked; order amending sheriff's return; abuse of discretion under K.S.A. 60-313; appealable order. Transport Clearing House, Inc. v. Rostock, 202 Kan. 72, 82, 447 P.2d 1.

9. Applied; prejudicial error warranting new trial not affirmatively shown. Bott v. Wendler, 203 Kan. 212, 230, 453 P.2d 100.

10. No contemporaneous objection offered to restrict scope of evidence; held to be harmless error. Scogin v. Nugen, 204 Kan. 568, 578, 464 P.2d 166.

11. Trial errors not prejudicial to substantial rights of either party; law does not guarantee a "perfect" trial, but it does guarantee a "fair" trial. Schneider v. Washington National Ins. Co., 204 Kan. 809, 815, 465 P.2d 932.

12. Denial of request of defendant's attorney to make an opening statement immediately following that of the state is technical error. State v. Guffey, 205 Kan. 9, 15, 468 P.2d 254.

13. Cited in case involving false arrest and malicious prosecution. Thompson v. General Finance Co., Inc., 205 Kan. 76, 101, 468 P.2d 269.

14. Mentioned in applying contemporaneous objection rule. Jensen v. Jensen, 205 Kan. 465, 467, 470 P.2d 829.

15. Regardless of whether testimony complained of was admissible, appellants' rights not prejudicially affected thereby. Coughlin v. City of Topeka, 206 Kan. 552, 558, 480 P.2d 91.

16. Unintentional mention of insurance disregarded; did not prejudicially affect rights of complaining party. Kelty v. Best Cabs, Inc., 206 Kan. 654, 657, 481 P.2d 980.

17. Mentioned in determining rights of condemner in eminent domain proceeding (dissenting opinion). City of Bonner Springs v. Coleman, 206 Kan. 689, 700, 481 P.2d 950.

18. Oral comments by judge during reading of instructions held not prejudicial. State v. Benson, 207 Kan. 453, 458, 485 P.2d 1266.

19. Mentioned; no error shown in admitting or restricting evidence or giving or refusing instructions or failing to clarify questions. Staudinger v. Sooner Pipe & Supply Corporation, 208 Kan. 101, 110, 490 P.2d 619.

20. Applied; unsigned affidavit of witness who had died held admissible; use by adverse party. Grubb, Administrator v. Grubb, 208 Kan. 484, 491, 493 P.2d 189.

21. Applied; specific performance of option to sell property; abatement of purchase price after condemnation. Wilcox v. Wyandott World-Wide, Inc., 208 Kan. 563, 572, 493 P.2d 251.

22. Cited; new trial denied where record fails to disclose errors affecting substantial rights. Hibler v. Nordyke, 212 Kan. 619, 620, 512 P.2d 485.

23. Procedural questions and minor points on appeal examined; held no prejudicial error resulted. State, ex rel., v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc., 212 Kan. 668, 680, 512 P.2d 416.

24. Exclusion of documents from evidence held to be technical error; substantial rights not prejudiced. Phillips & Easton Supply Co., Inc. v. Eleanor International, Inc., 212 Kan. 730, 738, 512 P.2d 379.

25. Cited; criminal convictions upheld. State v. Lora, 213 Kan. 184, 196, 515 P.2d 1086.

26. Cited in action challenging issuance of occupancy permit for professional office in zoned residential area. Weeks v. City of Bonner Springs, 213 Kan. 622, 634, 518 P.2d 427.

27. Applied; judgment against insurance company modified to include judgment against insured for amount deductible under policy. Venable v. Import Volkswagen, Inc., 214 Kan. 43, 44, 52, 519 P.2d 667.

28. No error in instruction attempting to define reasonable doubt. State v. Winston, 214 Kan. 525, 530, 531, 520 P.2d 1204.

29. Permitting use of blackboard drawing in prosecution for burglary and rape upheld. State v. Winston, 214 Kan. 525, 530, 520 P.2d 1204.

30. General verdict; no special findings; instructions erroneous; reversal required. Franklin v. Northwest Drilling Co., Inc., 215 Kan. 304, 314, 524 P.2d 1194.

31. Applied; claimed error technical and disregarded hereunder. Harvey v. Harvey, 215 Kan. 472, 476, 524 P.2d 1187.

32. Summary judgment in favor of detective in statutory action based on violation of mob statute upheld. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. City of Wichita, 217 Kan. 44, 52, 536 P.2d 54.

33. Error in theory upon which trial court determined case; reversed. Lawson v. Reese Enterprises, Inc., 220 Kan. 300, 317, 553 P.2d 885.

34. 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.

35. Evidence of guilt overwhelming; erroneous admission of evidence held harmless error. State v. Thompson, 221 Kan. 176, 181, 182, 558 P.2d 1079.

36. Supreme court will reverse trial court on discretionary matters only where substantial rights appear to have been affected. State v. Duncan, 221 Kan. 714, 723, 562 P.2d 84.

37. Kansas harmless error rule applied to federal constitutional error; trial court's decision reversed. Bey v. State, 1 Kan. App. 2d 429, 435, 566 P.2d 88.

38. Applied; matter heard in original case instead of new lawsuit upheld; trust accounting proceeding. Jennings v. Speaker, Executrix, 1 Kan. App. 2d 610, 614, 571 P.2d 358.

39. Applied; search resulted in harmless error; conviction under K.S.A. 21-3503 affirmed. State v. Holt, 2 Kan. App. 2d 1, 6, 574 P.2d 152.

40. Applied; appellant's rights not prejudicially affected even though court may have unduly restricted examination of defendant. Manley v. Rings, 222 Kan. 258, 262, 564 P.2d 482.

41. Relied on; error in giving instruction does not approach prejudicial proportions. State v. Mims, 222 Kan. 335, 340, 564 P.2d 531.

42. In applying harmless error rule to constitutional error court must declare error had little, if any, likelihood of changing result. State v. Hamilton, 222 Kan. 341, 345, 564 P.2d 536.

43. Section cited; trial court abused discretion not allowing counsel to interview jurors. State v. McDonald, 222 Kan. 494, 497, 565 P.2d 267.

44. Applied; mortgage foreclosure action; K.S.A. 60-2414 construed. Kansas Savings and Loan Ass'n v. Rich Eckel Construction Co., Inc., 223 Kan. 493, 502, 576 P.2d 212.

45. Applied; failure to give issues instruction in medical malpractice action not reversible error; award affirmed. Lucas v. Pearce, 223 Kan. 749, 753, 576 P.2d 670.

46. Bruton rule discussed; admission of evidence not harmless; conviction reversed. State v. Sullivan, 224 Kan. 110, 118, 578 P.2d 1108.

47. Section cited; evidence of one defendant's participation in another crime held not reversible error; joinder proper. State v. McQueen & Hardyway, 224 Kan. 420, 426, 582 P.2d 251.

48. Letter mistakenly included in trial exhibits delivered to jury held harmless error; judgment affirmed. State v. McClain, 224 Kan. 464, 580 P.2d 1334.

49. Exclusion of prior written inconsistent statement prejudicial error; conviction of certain crimes reversed. State v. Murrell, 224 Kan. 689, 693, 585 P.2d 1017.

50. Supreme Court required to render final judgment without regard to technical errors and irregularities in trial court proceedings. Brady v. Brady, 225 Kan. 485, 492, 592 P.2d 865.

51. Misconduct by prosecution harmless error; no abuse of discretion in refusal to grant new trial. State v. Jacques, 2 Kan. App. 2d 277, 292, 579 P.2d 146.

52. Trial court's citation of K.S.A. 84-2-314 instead of K.S.A. 84-2-315 of the Uniform Commercial Code was technical error only; trial court affirmed. Addis v. Bernardin, Inc., 226 Kan. 241, 246, 597 P.2d 250.

53. Service of notice deficiency and failure to file an appeal bond were not technical errors or irregularities under this section. In re Estate of Kempkes, 4 Kan. App. 2d 154, 155, 158, 160, 603 P.2d 642.

54. Preliminary hearing not required in probation revocation proceedings where probationer not in custody pending hearing. State v. Malbrough, 5 Kan. App. 2d 295, 615 P.2d 165.

55. Exclusion of statement by defense witness in probation revocation proceedings was not so prejudicial as to deny fair hearing. State v. Malbrough, 5 Kan. App. 2d 295, 297, 615 P.2d 165.

56. Portion of instruction dealing with murder committed while in unlawful possession of firearm erroneous; error nonprejudicial because of jury finding regarding aggravated robbery. State v. Rider, Edens & Lemons, 229 Kan. 394, 401, 407, 625 P.2d 425.

57. Trial court will be reversed only if substantial rights of party affected. State v. Belt, 6 Kan. App. 2d 585, 589, 591, 631 P.2d 674 (1981).

58. Inappropriate comment by prosecutor in closing argument harmless error in view of overwhelming evidence. State v. Folkerts, 229 Kan. 608, 615, 629 P.2d 173 (1981).

59. Irregularities and technical errors disregarded if ultimate determination is just. City of Kechi v. Decker, 230 Kan. 315, 321, 634 P.2d 1099 (1981).

60. Admission of illegally seized evidence held harmless error. State v. Chilcote, 7 Kan. App. 2d 685, 687, 647 P.2d 1349 (1982).

61. Although authenticity of document requirements not met, defendant must show harm or prejudice by error of admission. State v. Waufle, 9 Kan. App. 2d 68, 76, 77, 673 P.2d 109 (1983).

62. Holding hearing required by K.S.A. 60-460(dd)(2) prior to trial on merits cured failure to make determination before preliminary hearing. State v. Myatt, 237 Kan. 17, 28, 697 P.2d 836 (1985).

63. Cited; in view of admonition and overwhelming evidence, improper and inflammatory prosecutorial comment in closing argument harmless error. State v. Perrigo, 10 Kan. App. 2d 651, 654, 708 P.2d 987 (1985).

64. In applying rule to federal constitutional error, court must declare beyond reasonable doubt error had little likelihood of changing result. State v. Mason, 238 Kan. 129, 708 P.2d 963 (1985).

65. Testimony that defendant was in jail, although error, had little effect on trial outcome in light of confession. State v. Alexander, 240 Kan. 273, 276, 729 P.2d 1126 (1986).

66. Cited; waiver of allocution rights (K.S.A. 22-3422) when issue not raised on motion to modify sentence examined. State v. Webb, 242 Kan. 519, 527, 748 P.2d 875 (1988).

67. Cited; likelihood that erroneous admission of state's alcohol concentration test (K.S.A. 8-1004) changed trial results, examined. State v. George, 12 Kan. App. 2d 649, 655, 754 P.2d 460 (1988).

68. Seven-week trial with 6,000 pages of transcript and extensive related documents as revealing only harmless error noted. Leiker v. Gafford, 245 Kan. 325, 366, 778 P.2d 823 (1989).

69. Excluding evidence of conviction involving dishonesty (K.S.A. 60-421) as harmless error absent showing of prejudice to complaining party determined. Bick v. Peat Marwick & Main, 14 Kan. App. 2d 699, 712, 799 P.2d 94 (1990).

70. Personal injury negligence claim in workers compensation setting, effect of remand and settlement agreements examined. Bright v. LSI Corp., 254 Kan. 853, 860, 869 P.2d 686 (1994).

71. Trial court's failure to give instruction limiting use of prior crimes evidence held harmless error. State v. Denney, 258 Kan. 437, 444, 905 P.2d 657 (1995).

72. Cited in holding no reversal required when court erroneously refused jury instruction on voluntary intoxication defense. State v. Smith, 39 Kan. App. 2d 204, 212, 178 P.3d 672 (2008).

73. Harmless error standard of review shows no prejudice. State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 270 P.3d 1142 (2012).

74. Statutory harmless error standard is used in a context of violation of evidentiary limitations. State v. Warrior, 294 Kan. 484, 277 P.3d 1111 (2012).

75. Statutory harmless error standard is used in a context of violation of evidentiary limitations. State v. Gilliland, 294 Kan. 519, 276 P.3d 165 (2012).

76. Denying defendant's request for personal copies of discovery was a harmless error where defendant was not restricted from viewing the documents with counsel. State v. Willis, 51 Kan. App. 2d 971, 982, 358 P.3d 107 (2015).

77. When considering a motion for mistrial, after determining there was not a fundamental failure that infringed upon a right guaranteed by the United States constitution, a court should apply harmless error and technical and inadvertent error statutes to determine if there is a reasonable probability that the error will or did affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record. State v. Logsdon, 304 Kan. 3, 38-40, 371 P.3d 836 (2016).

78. To determine if a nonconstitutional error makes it impossible to proceed with the trial without injustice and requires a mistrial, a court must assess whether the fundamental failure affected a party's substantial rights under K.S.A. 60-231 and 60-2105. State v. Corey, 304 Kan. 721, 731, 374 P.3d 654 (2016).