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

K.S.A. § 22-4201 (2026)

Definitions

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

22-4201. Definitions. "Witness" as used in this article shall include a person whose testimony is desired in any proceedings or investigation by a grand jury or in a criminal action, prosecution or proceeding.

The word "state" shall include any territory of the United States and the District of Columbia.

The word "summons" shall include a subpoena, order or other notice requiring the appearance of a witness.

History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-4201; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Hobbs, 71 P.3d 1140 (Kan. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hobbs, 71 P.3d 1140 (Kan. 2003). “” He contends that the proper remedy for the State’s failure to comply with provisions of the Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without State, K.S.A. 22-4201 et seq., is reversal of his convictions and remand for a new trial.”
State v. Mantz, 565 P.2d 612 (Kan. 1977). “The trial court expressly found that diligent efforts were made by the state to try to locate the witness. Under these circumstances any attempt to obtain compulsory process via the Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses From Without State (K.”
State v. Gray, 616 S.W.2d 102 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981). “450, RSMo 1978; K.S.A. 22-4201 to 22-4206. In view of the Uniform Act, there is effective means by which a witness in a criminal case can be subpoenaed in Kansas to attend a criminal trial in Missouri.”
State v. White, 571 P.2d 6 (Kan. Ct. App. 1977). “Counsel attempted to obtain the witness’s attendance at the trial through the Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without State (K.S.A. 22-4201, et seq.). Colorado declined to issue the necessary order to Mrs.”
Scott v. Roberts, 777 F. Supp. 897 (D. Kan. 1991). “As Hahn resided in Minnesota, petitioner proceeded under the Uniform Act to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Without State, K.S.A. 22-4201 et seq. 1 On the day of the trial, December 4, 1990, petitioner requested a continuance because Hahn was not present to testify.”
State v. Contreras-Avila (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “See K.S.A. 22-4201 et seq.; K.S.A. 22-3214. He simply does not show how the potential for one missing witness affects his defense.”
State v. Theodore (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). “" The State presented testimony from the same three witnesses as at the July hearing—along with an additional fourth witness—about the State's subsequent efforts to secure Jess' presence, which consisted first of seeking an out-of-state subpoena under K.S.A. 22-4201 et seq., the…”
State v. Smiley (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). “" The State presented testimony from the same three witnesses as at the July hearing—along with an additional fourth witness—about the State's subsequent efforts to secure Jess' presence, which consisted first of seeking an out-of-state subpoena under K.S.A. 22-4201 et seq., the…”
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.