22-3215.
Motion to suppress confession or admission.
(1) Prior to the preliminary examination or trial a defendant may move to suppress as evidence any confession or admission given by him on the ground that it is not admissible as evidence.
(2) The motion shall be in writing and shall allege the grounds upon which it is claimed that the confession or admission is not admissible as evidence.
(3) If the motion alleges grounds which, if proved, would show the confession or admission not to be admissible the court shall conduct a hearing into the merits of the motion.
(4) The burden of proving that a confession or admission is admissible shall be on the prosecution.
(5) The issue of the admissibility of the confession or admission shall not be submitted to the jury. The circumstances surrounding the making of the confession or admission may be submitted to the jury as bearing upon the credibility or the weight to be given to the confession or admission.
(6) The motion shall be made before preliminary examination or trial, unless opportunity therefor did not exist or the defendant was not aware of the ground for the motion, but the court in its discretion may entertain the motion at the preliminary examination or the trial.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3215; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
58
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case:
State v. Oliver
State v. Oliver (2005)
kan · cites it 6×
“60-456 and K.S.A. 22-3215. *694 K.S.A. 60-456 reads in pertinent part: “(b) If the witness is testifying as an expert, testimony of the witness in die form of opinions or inferences is limited to such opinions as the judge finds are (1) based on facts or data perceived by or…”
State v. Kleypas (2001)
kan · cites it 2×
“He further argues that it is inconceivable that the prosecution was unaware of the law and that this incident must be considered as evidence of the prosecutor's ill will in addressing the overall pattern of misconduct. The trial court in addressing the motion for mistrial,…”
State v. Miles (1983)
kan · cites it 6×
“K.S.A. 22-3215 is the defendant’s statutory right to suppress a confession or admission given by the defendant on the grounds that a statement is not admissible as evidence.”
State v. Guein (2019)
kan · cites it 2×
“K.S.A. 22-3215(4); K.S.A. 22-3216(2). Issue 1: Was the pre-Miranda statement Guein made surrounding the initial pat-down of him admissible as evidence? Guein argues his statements made surrounding his pat-down, e.”
State v. Duncan (1977)
kan · cites it 4×
“Under K.S.A. 22-3215 on motion a hearing is to be held to determine the admissibility of a confession.”
State v. Strauch (1986)
kan · cites it 3×
“Prior to trial, a hearing was held on defendant’s motion to suppress the confession pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3215. The defendant asserted six specific grounds in his motion: (1) He was not properly advised of the Miranda warnings; (2) the statement was not voluntary but the result…”
State v. Goodseal (1976)
kan · cites it 2×
“It is the duty of the trial court upon a motion to suppress to determine, in the first instance, whether a confession has been made voluntarily and without compulsion or coercion and the burden of proving voluntariness is on the state (K.S.A. 22-3215). "When a trial court,…”
State v. Buckner (1977)
kan · cites it 2×
“The court erred in overruling defendant's motion, pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3215, to suppress as evidence any and all statements given by defendant and obtained incident to his illegal arrest.”
State v. Cellier (1997)
kan · cites it 3×
“Cellier contends that the admission of his statements at trial violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution because the statements were the product of police coercion.”
State v. Morris (1994)
kan · cites it 2×
“The State notes that under K.S.A. 22-3215(5), once a court has ruled a confession is admissible, the admissibility of that confession will not be submitted to the jury.”
State v. Newman (1984)
kan · cites it 2×
“The opinion in Boling acknowledged that the Kansas cases have implicitly recognized appellate jurisdiction of interlocutory appeals from an order which prohibits the introduction of relevant evidence for reasons other than the involuntariness of a confession or the illegality of…”
State v. William (1991)
kan · cites it 2×
“The Court went on to say that the defendant did not contend the law enforcement officers’ actions were coercive and, thus, there was no federal constitutional issue under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the question whether the confession was unreliable…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3215(3) — 1 case
— K.S.A. § 22-3215(4) — 19 cases
State v. Guein (2019)
kan
“K.S.A. 22-3215(4); K.S.A. 22-3216(2). Issue 1: Was the pre-Miranda statement Guein made surrounding the initial pat-down of him admissible as evidence? Guein argues his statements made surrounding his pat-down, e.”
State v. William (1991)
kan
“The Court went on to say that the defendant did not contend the law enforcement officers’ actions were coercive and, thus, there was no federal constitutional issue under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the question whether the confession was unreliable…”
State v. Strauch (1986)
kan
“Prior to trial, a hearing was held on defendant’s motion to suppress the confession pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3215. The defendant asserted six specific grounds in his motion: (1) He was not properly advised of the Miranda warnings; (2) the statement was not voluntary but the result…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3215(5) — 7 cases
State v. Oliver (2005)
kan
“60-456 and K.S.A. 22-3215. *694 K.S.A. 60-456 reads in pertinent part: “(b) If the witness is testifying as an expert, testimony of the witness in die form of opinions or inferences is limited to such opinions as the judge finds are (1) based on facts or data perceived by or…”
State v. Kleypas (2001)
kan
“He further argues that it is inconceivable that the prosecution was unaware of the law and that this incident must be considered as evidence of the prosecutor's ill will in addressing the overall pattern of misconduct. The trial court in addressing the motion for mistrial,…”
State v. Morris (1994)
kan
“The State notes that under K.S.A. 22-3215(5), once a court has ruled a confession is admissible, the admissibility of that confession will not be submitted to the jury.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3215(6) — 1 case
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.