Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 59-29a06 (2026)

Pretrial conference; trial; counsel, examiners and experts; indigent persons; jury, composition, peremptory challenges

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

59-29a06. Pretrial conference; trial; counsel, examiners and experts; indigent persons; jury, composition, peremptory challenges. (a) Within 60 days after the completion of any hearing held pursuant to K.S.A. 59-29a05, and amendments thereto, the court shall set the matter for a pretrial conference to establish a mutually agreeable date for trial to determine whether the person is a sexually violent predator. The trial may be continued upon the request of either party and a showing of good cause, or by the court on its own motion in the due administration of justice and when the respondent will not be substantially prejudiced.

(b) In proceedings under this section, the person shall be entitled to the assistance of counsel and an independent examination pursuant to K.S.A. 60-235, and amendments thereto, and if the person is indigent, the court shall appoint counsel to assist such person. When the person wishes to be examined pursuant to K.S.A. 60-235, and amendments thereto, the examiner shall be permitted to have reasonable access to the person for the purpose of such examination, as well as to all relevant medical and psychological records and reports. In the case of a person who is indigent, the court, upon the person's request, shall determine whether the services are necessary and reasonable compensation for such services. If the court determines that the services are necessary and the examiner's requested compensation for such services is reasonable, the court shall assist the person in obtaining an examiner to perform an examination or participate in the trial on the person's behalf. The court shall approve payment for such services upon the filing of a certified claim for compensation supported by a written statement specifying the time expended, services rendered, expenses incurred on behalf of the person and compensation received in the same case or for the same services from any other source.

(c) Notwithstanding K.S.A. 60-456, and amendments thereto, at any proceeding conducted under the Kansas sexually violent predator act, the parties shall be permitted to call expert witnesses. The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. If the facts or data are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, such facts and data need not be admissible in evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted.

(d) The person, the attorney general, or the judge shall have the right to demand that the trial be before a jury. Such demand for the trial to be before a jury shall be filed, in writing, at least four days prior to trial. Number and selection of jurors shall be determined as provided in K.S.A. 22-3403, and amendments thereto. If no demand is made, the trial shall be before the court.

(e) A jury shall consist of 12 jurors unless the parties agree in writing with the approval of the court that the jury shall consist of any number of jurors less than 12 jurors. The person and the attorney general shall each have eight peremptory challenges, or in the case of a jury of less than 12 jurors, a proportionally equal number of peremptory challenges.

(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the provisions of this section relating to jury trials shall not apply to proceedings for annual review or proceedings on a petition for transitional release, conditional release or final discharge.

History: L. 1994, ch. 316, § 6; L. 1995, ch. 193, § 5; L. 1999, ch. 71, § 1; L. 2003, ch. 152, § 3; L. 2011, ch. 92, § 3; L. 2012, ch. 59, § 2; L. 2015, ch. 95, § 6; July 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 42 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: In Re Care & Treatment of Searcy, 49 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Care & Treatment of Searcy, 49 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 23× “After the issues were briefed on appeal, Searcy for the first time claimed that the district court lacked jurisdiction because he had not been brought to trial within the mandatory time period set forth in K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 59-29a06. On April 17, 2000, a petition was filed to…”

In re the Care & Treatment of Ontiberos, 287 P.3d 855 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 7× “If so, the provision for counsel in subsection (b) is made less certain by the subsequent subsection (e) in the same statute.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Hunt, 82 P.3d 861 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 7× “Each now argues that he should be discharged because his trial did not begin within 60 days of his probable cause hearing, as required by K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 59-29a06, and that the district court therefore lacked jurisdiction.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Johnson, 85 P.3d 1252 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “In this appeal from the commitment order, Johnson challenges the district court’s findings and conclusions that (1) res judicata or collateral estoppel does not apply; (2) there was no violation of the 60-day trial requirement imposed under K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 59-29a06; (3) a…”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Brown, 978 P.2d 300 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 10× “Brown alleged the State failed to comply with the statutory requirements of K.S.A. 1995 Supp. 59-29a06, which requires a trial within 60 days of the probable cause hearing.”

In re Care & Treatment of Cone, 435 P.3d 45 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 3× “Pointedly, Girard did not mention the 2011 amendments to K.S.A. 59-29a06 or indicate that, going forward, there would be a **327 statutory constraint on applying the general test for admitting scientific evidence from expert witnesses in a SVPA action.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Williams, 253 P.3d 327 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 59-29a06(a); K.S.A.2010 Supp. 59-29a07(a), (e); see also In re Care & Treatment of Foster, 280 Kan.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Emerson, 369 P.3d 327 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “" The legislature thus expressed its clear intent that the time limits were not intended to be jurisdictional. Based on that intent, our court held that the 60-day time limit was not mandatory, and failure to comply with it does not divest the court of jurisdiction.”

State v. Dupree, 371 P.3d 862 (Kan. 2016). “3d 1 [2002] [“The mandatory language of K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 59-29a06 is analogous to the statutory right to speedy trial in criminal cases”]).”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Blackmore, 39 P.3d 89 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “” This was apparently done without a clear waiver of the 60-day rule pursuant to K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 59-29a06 being obtained from Blackmore.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Foster, 127 P.3d 277 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 2× “2d at 727 , the statutory commitment scheme involves the attorney general as the “prosecuting attorney,” K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-29a03(a); entitles the respondent to assistance of counsel if indigent, K.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Miles, 213 P.3d 1077 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “) In any event, K.S.A. 59-29a06 also seems to speak directly to the rights of the committed person to an independent evaluation.”

Show all 42 citing cases →

— K.S.A. § 59-29a06(a) — 10 cases

In Re the Care & Treatment of Williams, 253 P.3d 327 (Kan. 2011). “K.S.A. 59-29a06(a); K.S.A.2010 Supp. 59-29a07(a), (e); see also In re Care & Treatment of Foster, 280 Kan.”

In re Care & Treatment of Easterberg, 437 P.3d 964 (Kan. 2019).

In Re the Care & Treatment of Emerson, 369 P.3d 327 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). “" The legislature thus expressed its clear intent that the time limits were not intended to be jurisdictional. Based on that intent, our court held that the 60-day time limit was not mandatory, and failure to comply with it does not divest the court of jurisdiction.”

In re the Care & Treatment of Ontiberos, 287 P.3d 855 (Kan. 2012). “If so, the provision for counsel in subsection (b) is made less certain by the subsequent subsection (e) in the same statute.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Palmer, 265 P.3d 565 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).

— K.S.A. § 59-29a06(b) — 13 cases

In re the Care & Treatment of Ontiberos, 287 P.3d 855 (Kan. 2012). “If so, the provision for counsel in subsection (b) is made less certain by the subsequent subsection (e) in the same statute.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Williams, 253 P.3d 327 (Kan. 2011). “K.S.A. 59-29a06(a); K.S.A.2010 Supp. 59-29a07(a), (e); see also In re Care & Treatment of Foster, 280 Kan.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Miles, 213 P.3d 1077 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). “) In any event, K.S.A. 59-29a06 also seems to speak directly to the rights of the committed person to an independent evaluation.”

Merryfield v. State, 241 P.3d 573 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).

State v. Tims, 355 P.3d 660 (Kan. 2015).

— K.S.A. § 59-29a06(c) — 8 cases

In re Care & Treatment of Cone, 435 P.3d 45 (Kan. 2019). “Pointedly, Girard did not mention the 2011 amendments to K.S.A. 59-29a06 or indicate that, going forward, there would be a **327 statutory constraint on applying the general test for admitting scientific evidence from expert witnesses in a SVPA action.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Foster, 127 P.3d 277 (Kan. 2006). “2d at 727 , the statutory commitment scheme involves the attorney general as the “prosecuting attorney,” K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 59-29a03(a); entitles the respondent to assistance of counsel if indigent, K.”

In re the Care & Treatment of Quary, 324 P.3d 331 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014).

In re the Care & Treatment of Ontiberos, 287 P.3d 855 (Kan. 2012). “If so, the provision for counsel in subsection (b) is made less certain by the subsequent subsection (e) in the same statute.”

In Re the Care & Treatment of Ramage, 387 P.3d 853 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).

— K.S.A. § 59-29a06(e) — 3 cases

In re the Care & Treatment of Ontiberos, 287 P.3d 855 (Kan. 2012). “If so, the provision for counsel in subsection (b) is made less certain by the subsequent subsection (e) in the same statute.”

In re Care & Treatment of Emerson (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).

In re Care & Treatment of Ellison (Kan. 2016).

— K.S.A. § 59-29a06(f) — 2 cases

In Re the Care & Treatment of Ellison, 359 P.3d 1063 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).

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.