K.S.A. » Chapter 22
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 22-3437 (2026)

Forensic examinations; admissibility; certification; notices of proffer and objection to admission; use of interactive video testimony

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

22-3437. Forensic examinations; admissibility; certification; notices of proffer and objection to admission; use of interactive video testimony. (a) (1) In any hearing or trial, a report concerning forensic examinations and certificate of forensic examination executed pursuant to this section shall be admissible in evidence if the report and certificate are prepared and attested by a criminalist or other employee of the Kansas bureau of investigation, Kansas highway patrol, Johnson County sheriff's laboratory, Sedgwick County regional forensic science center, or any laboratory of the federal bureau of investigation, federal postal inspection service, federal bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms or federal drug enforcement administration. If the examination involves a breath test for alcohol content, the report must also be admissible pursuant to K.S.A. 8-1001, and amendments thereto, or K.S.A. 2025 Supp. 3-1007, and amendments thereto, and be conducted by a law enforcement officer or other person who is certified by the department of health and environment as a breath test operator as provided by K.S.A. 65-1,107 et seq., and amendments thereto.

(2) Upon the request of any law enforcement agency, such person as provided in paragraph (1) performing the analysis shall prepare a certificate. Such person shall sign the certificate under oath and shall include in the certificate an attestation as to the result of the analysis. The presentation of this certificate to a court by any party to a proceeding shall be evidence that all of the requirements and provisions of this section have been complied with. This certificate shall be supported by a written declaration pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, or shall be sworn to before a notary public or other person empowered by law to take oaths and shall contain a statement establishing the following: The type of analysis performed; the result achieved; any conclusions reached based upon that result; that the subscriber is the person who performed the analysis and made the conclusions; the subscriber's training or experience to perform the analysis; the nature and condition of the equipment used; and the certification and foundation requirements for admissibility of breath test results, when appropriate. When properly executed, the certificate shall, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, be admissible evidence of the results of the forensic examination of the samples or evidence submitted for analysis and the court shall take judicial notice of the signature of the person performing the analysis and of the fact that such person is that person who performed the analysis.

(3) Whenever a party intends to proffer in a criminal or civil proceeding, a certificate executed pursuant to this section, notice of an intent to proffer that certificate and the reports relating to the analysis in question, including a copy of the certificate, shall be conveyed to the opposing party or parties at least 21 days before the beginning of a hearing where the proffer will be used. An opposing party who intends to object to the admission into evidence of a certificate shall give notice of objection and the grounds for the objection within 14 days upon receiving the adversary's notice of intent to proffer the certificate. Whenever a notice of objection is filed, admissibility of the certificate shall be determined not later than two days before the beginning of the trial. A proffered certificate shall be admitted in evidence unless it appears from the notice of objection and grounds for that objection that the conclusions of the certificate, including the composition, quality or quantity of the substance submitted to the laboratory for analysis or the alcohol content of a blood or breath sample will be contested at trial. A failure to comply with the time limitations regarding the notice of objection required by this section shall constitute a waiver of any objections to the admission of the certificate. The time limitations set forth in this section may be extended upon a showing of good cause.

(b) (1) In any hearing or trial where there is a report concerning forensic examinations from a person as provided in subsection (a)(1), district and municipal courts may, upon request of either party, use two-way interactive video technology, including internet-based videoconferencing, to take testimony from that person if the testimony is in relation to the report.

(2) The use of any two-way interactive video technology must be in accordance with any requirements and guidelines established by the office of judicial administration, and all proceedings at which such technology is used in a district court must be recorded verbatim by the court.

History: L. 1993, ch. 261, § 3; L. 1996, ch. 224, § 3; L. 2002, ch. 163, § 4; L. 2003, ch. 70, § 1; L. 2008, ch. 170, § 5; L. 2010, ch. 90, § 2; L. 2011, ch. 2, § 1; L. 2012, ch. 166, § 5; L. 2022, ch. 80, § 20; L. 2022, ch. 80, § 20; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1996–2016 · leading case: State v. Laturner, 218 P.3d 23 (Kan. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Laturner, 218 P.3d 23 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 39× “22-3437, and determine whether the statute undermines the Confrontation Clause by permitting the use of an analyst’s certificate in lieu of testimony if the State has given notice of its intent to use the certificate and the defendant has not objected or, if the defendant has…”
State v. Crow, 974 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1999). · cites it 28× “: The State of Kansas appeals on a question reserved the trial court’s decision that K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 22-3437 unconstitutionally deprives a criminal defendant of the right to confront witnesses guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Laturner, 163 P.3d 367 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 18× “He claims the trial court’s reliance upon K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-3437 to admit the incriminating results of lab tests performed on substances found in his possession denied him the right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to confront his accuser.”
State v. Wallin, 366 P.3d 651 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “22-3437, which permits the use of a forensic laboratory analyst's certificate of analysis in lieu of testimony, violated a defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After discussing the issue at length, our…”
State v. Murphy, 219 P.3d 1223 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 20× “Issues on Appeal The defendant raises the following issues: I.”
Miller v. State, 472 S.E.2d 74 (Ga. 1996). “, K.S.A. 22-3437 (Kansas); R.S.A. 318-B:2 (New Hampshire); N.”
State v. Leshay, 213 P.3d 1071 (Kan. 2009). “In other words, the provisions of K.S.A.”
State v. Ulrey, 208 P.3d 317 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “Ulrey also contends that admission of KBI scientist Chris Riddle’s testimony about a report prepared by another KBI scientist violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and was contrary to K.S.A. 22-3437. K.S.A. 22-3437(1)…”
State v. Elkins, 242 P.3d 1223 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “The court found that the reports contained assertions of fact by trial witnesses who normally would be required to testify as to their conclusions.”
State v. Neal, 6 P.3d 632 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “The detriments flowing from this course of action are many and obvious: impediment to Neal’s right to a speedy trial; inconvenience to other witnesses and parties to the trial already assembled; cost of transporting the witness as well as rescheduling the trial; and loss of…”
Bradley v. State, 81 P.3d 444 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “2d 100 (1999) (hearsay evidence admitted by authority of K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 22-3437 held not violative of United States Constitution or Kansas Constitution).”
State v. Hudson, 985 P.2d 1167 (Kan. 1999). “2d 100 (1999), we considered a statute (K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 22-3437) dealing with the admission of documentary evidence and held it was procedural.”
K.S.A. § 22-3437(1): 2 cases
State v. Laturner, 218 P.3d 23 (Kan. 2009). “22-3437, and determine whether the statute undermines the Confrontation Clause by permitting the use of an analyst’s certificate in lieu of testimony if the State has given notice of its intent to use the certificate and the defendant has not objected or, if the defendant has…”
State v. Ulrey, 208 P.3d 317 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “Ulrey also contends that admission of KBI scientist Chris Riddle’s testimony about a report prepared by another KBI scientist violated his right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and was contrary to K.S.A. 22-3437. K.S.A. 22-3437(1)…”
K.S.A. § 22-3437(2): 3 cases
State v. Laturner, 218 P.3d 23 (Kan. 2009). “22-3437, and determine whether the statute undermines the Confrontation Clause by permitting the use of an analyst’s certificate in lieu of testimony if the State has given notice of its intent to use the certificate and the defendant has not objected or, if the defendant has…”
State v. Crow, 974 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1999). “: The State of Kansas appeals on a question reserved the trial court’s decision that K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 22-3437 unconstitutionally deprives a criminal defendant of the right to confront witnesses guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Laturner, 163 P.3d 367 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “He claims the trial court’s reliance upon K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-3437 to admit the incriminating results of lab tests performed on substances found in his possession denied him the right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to confront his accuser.”
K.S.A. § 22-3437(3): 4 cases
State v. Laturner, 218 P.3d 23 (Kan. 2009). “22-3437, and determine whether the statute undermines the Confrontation Clause by permitting the use of an analyst’s certificate in lieu of testimony if the State has given notice of its intent to use the certificate and the defendant has not objected or, if the defendant has…”
State v. Laturner, 163 P.3d 367 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “He claims the trial court’s reliance upon K.S.A. 2006 Supp. 22-3437 to admit the incriminating results of lab tests performed on substances found in his possession denied him the right under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to confront his accuser.”
State v. Crow, 974 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1999). “: The State of Kansas appeals on a question reserved the trial court’s decision that K.S.A. 1996 Supp. 22-3437 unconstitutionally deprives a criminal defendant of the right to confront witnesses guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Murphy, 219 P.3d 1223 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “Issues on Appeal The defendant raises the following issues: I.”
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.