22-3415.
Laws applicable to witnesses; immunity from prosecution or punishment.
(a) The provisions of law in civil cases relative to compelling the attendance and testimony of witnesses, their examination, the administration of oaths and affirmations, and proceedings as for contempt, to enforce the remedies and protect the rights of the parties, shall extend to criminal cases so far as they are in their nature applicable, unless other provision is made by statute.
(b) The county or district attorney or the attorney general may at any time, on behalf of the state, grant in writing to any person:
(1) Transactional immunity. Any person granted transactional immunity shall not be prosecuted for any crime which has been committed for which such immunity is granted or for any other transactions arising out of the same incident.
(2) Use and derivative immunity. Any person granted use and derivative use immunity may be prosecuted for any crime, but the state shall not use any testimony against such person provided under a grant of such immunity or any evidence derived from such testimony. Any defendant may file with the court a motion to suppress in writing to prevent the state from using evidence on the grounds that the evidence was derived from and obtained against the defendant as a result of testimony or statements made under such grant of immunity. The motion shall state facts supporting the allegations. Upon a hearing on such motion, the state shall have the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the evidence was obtained independently and from a collateral source.
(c) Any person granted immunity under either or both of subsection (b)(1) or (2) may not refuse to testify on grounds that such testimony may self incriminate unless such testimony may form the basis for a violation of federal law for which immunity under federal law has not been conferred. No person shall be compelled to testify in any proceeding where the person is a defendant.
(d) No immunity shall be granted for perjury as provided in K.S.A. 21-5903, and amendments thereto, which was committed in giving such evidence.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3415; L. 1972, ch. 122, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 56, § 3; L. 2011, ch. 30, § 128; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case:
State v. Delacruz, 411 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2018).
State v. Delacruz, 411 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2018).
· cites it 5× “Judge Chambers then issued an order stating: " K.S.A. 22-3415 confers upon the District Attorney the authority to grant use and derivative immunity .”
State v. Brewer, 732 P.2d 780 (Kan. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 5× “The Kansas immunity statute, K.S.A. 22-3415, provides in part: “The county or district attorney or the attorney general may at any time, on behalf of the state, grant in writing to any person immunity from prosecution or punishment on account of any transaction or matter…”
State v. Delacruz, 364 P.3d 557 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 10× “The next day, the trial court issued an order stating: “K.S.A. 22-3415 confers upon the District Attorney the authority to grant use and derivative immunity.”
State v. Llamas, 311 P.3d 399 (Kan. 2013).
“The State granted derivative use immunity, see K.S.A. 22-3415(b)(2) and (c), to several witnesses who testified at trial, including Ruby, Michael, and Meyers.”
Commonwealth v. Swinehart, 664 A.2d 957 (Pa. 1995).
“2d 1301 (1975), interpreting Kan.Stat.Ann. § 22-3415 (which permits use/derivative use and transactional immunity); State v.”
Cabral v. State, 871 P.2d 1285 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “” In Kansas, K.S.A. 22-3415 authorizes a written grant of immunity for the purpose of compelling testimony.”
State v. Cathey, 741 P.2d 738 (Kan. 1987).
“Cathey argues that the grant of immunity to Janet Moore for prior perjury violates his Fourteenth Amendment rights and K.S.A. 22-3415, which provides: “22-3415.”
Governmental Ethics Comm'n v. Cahill, 594 P.2d 1103 (Kan. 1979).
· cites it 12× “The trial court held that the grant of immunity given appellant under K.S.A. 22-3415 in this case was sufficient.”
State v. Bryant, 613 P.2d 1348 (Kan. 1980).
“*247 K.S.A. 22-3415 provides: “The provisions of law in civil cases relative to compelling the attendance and testimony of witnesses, their examination, the administration of oaths and affirmations, and proceedings as for contempt, to enforce the remedies and protect the rights…”
State v. Grubbs, 747 P.2d 140 (Kan. 1987).
“See K.S.A. 22-3415, Laws applicable to witnesses.”
State v. Talsma, 584 P.2d 145 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).
“22-3415 [Weeks]) affords a witness protection from self-incrimination in state prosecutions and under the federal case law a similar protection from federal prosecution is afforded on account of any transaction or matter contained in any statement or about which such witness…”
State v. Contreras, 467 P.3d 522 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
“22-3415(b)(1) ("Any person granted transactional 22 immunity shall not be prosecuted for any crime which has been committed for which such immunity is granted or for any other transactions arising out of the same incident." [Emphasis added.]). So when a court dismisses a count…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3415(a) — 3 cases
State v. Delacruz, 411 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2018).
“Judge Chambers then issued an order stating: " K.S.A. 22-3415 confers upon the District Attorney the authority to grant use and derivative immunity .”
State v. Delacruz, 364 P.3d 557 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
“The next day, the trial court issued an order stating: “K.S.A. 22-3415 confers upon the District Attorney the authority to grant use and derivative immunity.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3415(a)(c) — 1 case
State v. Delacruz, 411 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2018).
“Judge Chambers then issued an order stating: " K.S.A. 22-3415 confers upon the District Attorney the authority to grant use and derivative immunity .”
— K.S.A. § 22-3415(b)(1) — 1 case
State v. Contreras, 467 P.3d 522 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
“22-3415(b)(1) ("Any person granted transactional 22 immunity shall not be prosecuted for any crime which has been committed for which such immunity is granted or for any other transactions arising out of the same incident." [Emphasis added.]). So when a court dismisses a count…”
— K.S.A. § 22-3415(b)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Llamas, 311 P.3d 399 (Kan. 2013).
“The State granted derivative use immunity, see K.S.A. 22-3415(b)(2) and (c), to several witnesses who testified at trial, including Ruby, Michael, and Meyers.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3415(c) — 2 cases
State v. Delacruz, 411 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2018).
“Judge Chambers then issued an order stating: " K.S.A. 22-3415 confers upon the District Attorney the authority to grant use and derivative immunity .”
State v. Delacruz, 364 P.3d 557 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
“The next day, the trial court issued an order stating: “K.S.A. 22-3415 confers upon the District Attorney the authority to grant use and derivative immunity.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3415(d) — 2 cases
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.