22-3213.
Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses.
(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the state of Kansas, no statement or report in the possession of the prosecution which was made by a state witness or prospective state witness, other than the defendant, shall be the subject of subpoena, discovery or inspection until such witness has testified on direct examination at the preliminary hearing or in the trial of the case.
(b) After a witness called by the state has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the prosecution to produce any statement, as defined in subsection (d), of the witness in the possession of the prosecution which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified. If the entire contents of any such statement relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order it to be delivered directly to the defense for examination and use by the defense.
(c) If the prosecution claims that any statement ordered to be produced under this section contains matter which does not relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order the prosecution to deliver such statement for the inspection of the court in camera. Upon such delivery the court shall excise the portions of such statement which do not relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness. With such material excised, the court shall then direct delivery of such statement to the defense for use by the defense. If, pursuant to such procedure, any portion of such statement is withheld from the defense and the defense objects to such withholding, and the trial is continued to an adjudication of the guilt of the defendant, the entire text of such statement shall be preserved by the prosecution and, in the event the defendant appeals, shall be made available to the appellate court for the purpose of determining the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge. Whenever any statement is delivered to a defense pursuant to this section, the court in its discretion, upon application of the defense, may recess proceedings in the trial for such time as it may determine to be reasonably required for the examination of such statement by the defense and preparation for its use in the trial.
(d) The term "statement," as used in subsections (b) and (c) in relation to any witness called by the prosecution means:
(1) A written statement made by such witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by such witness; or
(2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by such witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3213; L. 2014, ch. 34, § 2; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
48
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case:
State v. Marks, 298 P.3d 1102 (Kan. 2013).
State v. Marks, 298 P.3d 1102 (Kan. 2013).
· cites it 11× “22-3212 and K.S.A. 22-3213; and (4) cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial.”
State v. Marks, 490 P.3d 1160 (Kan. 2021).
· cites it 19× “Desch, of Law Office of Joseph Desch, of Topeka, was on the brief for appellant.”
State v. Johnson, 301 P.3d 287 (Kan. 2013).
· cites it 5× “In the first approach, he asserts that he was entitled to have tire field notes under K.S.A. 22-3213 and that the district court should have sanctioned the State for its failure to produce the evidence by dismissing tire case.”
State v. Smallwood, 574 P.2d 1361 (Kan. 1978).
· cites it 6× “First he claims the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for production of documents pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3213. Second he contends the trial court erred in allowing the admission of exhibits by the state on the ground they were irrelevant.”
State v. DuMars, 108 P.3d 448 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “22-3212 and K.S.A. 22-3213." State v. Trotter, 245 Kan.”
State v. Johnson & Taylor, 573 P.2d 976 (Kan. 1977).
· cites it 6× “) After Detective Sanchez testified either at the preliminary hearing or at the trial, K.S.A. 22-3213 came into play and the defendants were entitled to the detective's report and field notes, if available.”
State v. Sandstrom, 595 P.2d 324 (Kan. 1979).
· cites it 3× “22-3212 and K.S.A. 22-3213. The statutes provide in part as follows: “22-3212.”
State v. Coleman, 856 P.2d 121 (Kan. 1993).
· cites it 3× “S.A. 22-3213. These statutes pertain primarily to the State’s duty of revelation.”
State v. Myers, 697 P.2d 879 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “As a result of this erasure, the State could not produce the tape pursuant to the defendant's request under K.S.A. 22-3213. Defendant also raised the discrepancy in the number of items on the two typed property returns as further support of his motion to strike.”
State v. Hebert, 82 P.3d 470 (Kan. 2004).
“Had Detective Kemp revised his report, the State would have been required to deliver that report to the defendant under K.S.A. 22-3213(2), which states in part: “After a witness called by the state has testified on direct examination [at the preliminary hearing], the court…”
State v. Bright, 623 P.2d 917 (Kan. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Defendant also cites cases decided under K.S.A. 22-3213, referred to as the “Little Jencks Act,” which makes available to a defendant prior statements of prosecution witnesses.”
State v. Johnson, 643 P.2d 146 (Kan. 1982).
· cites it 2× “Subsection (2) of the statute states: *156 “After a witness called by the state has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the prosecution to produce any statement (as hereinafter defined) of the witness in the possession of the…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3213(1) — 5 cases
State v. DuMars, 108 P.3d 448 (Kan. Ct. App. 2005).
“22-3212 and K.S.A. 22-3213." State v. Trotter, 245 Kan.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3213(2) — 12 cases
State v. Hebert, 82 P.3d 470 (Kan. 2004).
“Had Detective Kemp revised his report, the State would have been required to deliver that report to the defendant under K.S.A. 22-3213(2), which states in part: “After a witness called by the state has testified on direct examination [at the preliminary hearing], the court…”
State v. Johnson, 301 P.3d 287 (Kan. 2013).
“In the first approach, he asserts that he was entitled to have tire field notes under K.S.A. 22-3213 and that the district court should have sanctioned the State for its failure to produce the evidence by dismissing tire case.”
State v. Johnson, 643 P.2d 146 (Kan. 1982).
“Subsection (2) of the statute states: *156 “After a witness called by the state has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the prosecution to produce any statement (as hereinafter defined) of the witness in the possession of the…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3213(4) — 1 case
State v. Smallwood, 574 P.2d 1361 (Kan. 1978).
“First he claims the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for production of documents pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3213. Second he contends the trial court erred in allowing the admission of exhibits by the state on the ground they were irrelevant.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3213(4)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Bright, 623 P.2d 917 (Kan. 1981).
“Defendant also cites cases decided under K.S.A. 22-3213, referred to as the “Little Jencks Act,” which makes available to a defendant prior statements of prosecution witnesses.”
State v. Smallwood, 574 P.2d 1361 (Kan. 1978).
“First he claims the trial court erred in refusing to grant his request for production of documents pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3213. Second he contends the trial court erred in allowing the admission of exhibits by the state on the ground they were irrelevant.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3213(4)(o) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 22-3213(a) — 1 case
State v. Marks, 490 P.3d 1160 (Kan. 2021).
“Desch, of Law Office of Joseph Desch, of Topeka, was on the brief for appellant.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3213(b) — 1 case
State v. Marks, 490 P.3d 1160 (Kan. 2021).
“Desch, of Law Office of Joseph Desch, of Topeka, was on the brief for appellant.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3213(c) — 1 case
State v. Marks, 490 P.3d 1160 (Kan. 2021).
“Desch, of Law Office of Joseph Desch, of Topeka, was on the brief for appellant.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3213(l) — 1 case
State v. Marks, 298 P.3d 1102 (Kan. 2013).
“22-3212 and K.S.A. 22-3213; and (4) cumulative error deprived him of a fair trial.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.