60-243.
Testimony of witnesses; evidence.
(a)
Form and admissibility.
At trial, the witness' testimony must be taken in open court, unless otherwise provided by law. For good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, the court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location.
(b)
Scope of examination and cross-examination.
A party may examine any unwilling or hostile witness by leading questions. A party may call an adverse party or an officer, director or managing agent of a public or private corporation, a partnership or an association that is an adverse party, may examine the witness by leading questions and may contradict and impeach the witness as if the witness had been called by the adverse party. The witness may be contradicted and impeached by the adverse party, but may be cross-examined only on the subject matter of the witness' direct examination.
(c)
Record of excluded evidence.
In a jury trial, if an objection to a question to a witness is sustained, the examining attorney may make a specific offer of what the examining attorney expects to prove by the witness' answer. The offer must be made out of the jury's hearing. The court may add any further statement that clearly shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made and the ruling on the objection. In nonjury trials the same procedure may be followed, except that the court on request must take and report the evidence in full unless it clearly appears that the evidence is not admissible or is privileged.
(d)
Evidence on a motion.
When a motion relies on facts outside the record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits or on declarations pursuant to K.S.A. 53-601, and amendments thereto, or may hear it wholly or partly on oral testimony or on depositions.
(e)
Interpreter.
In accordance with K.S.A. 75-4351 through 75-4355d, and amendments thereto, the court may appoint an interpreter of its choosing; fix reasonable compensation to be paid from funds provided by law or, subject to the limitations in K.S.A. 75-4352 and 75-4355b, and amendments thereto, by one or more parties and tax the compensation as costs.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-243; amended by Supreme Court order dated July 17, 1969; L. 1997, ch. 173, § 23; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 112; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
37
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2022 · leading case:
In the Interest of K.E., 272 P.3d 28 (Kan. 2012).
In the Interest of K.E., 272 P.3d 28 (Kan. 2012).
· cites it 8× “In the past K.S.A. 60-243 and Supreme Court Rule 145 generally prohibited telephone testimony.”
State v. Pham, 675 P.2d 848 (Kan. 1984).
· cites it 4× “§ 60-243[e] [1979], comments, p. 259; Vernon’s Kansas C.”
Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo, 275 P.3d 869 (Kan. 2012).
· cites it 4× “As support for this conclusion, the court cited the federal equivalent to K.S.A. 60-243(d) — Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 43.”
In Re the Est. of Broderick, 191 P.3d 284 (Kan. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, while K.S.A. 60-243 requires that testimony be given orally in open court, it also states “unless otherwise provided by this article.”
In the Interest of J.O., 232 P.3d 880 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 6× “236) and K.S.A. 60-243. Accordingly, we reject the State’s contention that the first requirement of the due process analysis is not satisfied here, and we conclude that Father had a fundamental liberty interest at stake under these circumstances.”
In re K.E., 261 P.3d 934 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 10× “See K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-243. Unfortunately, the legislature has not designated what constitutes “appropriate safeguards.”
State v. Fisher, 563 P.2d 1012 (Kan. 1977).
· cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-243; Fed. R. Crim. P. 26. If the exception were not applied discriminately, the state might, for example, be tempted to present its case at a preliminary hearing when the defense often is not well prepared to cross-examine effectively, and then simply introduce a…”
State v. Hobson, 671 P.2d 1365 (Kan. 1983).
· cites it 2× “The State argued Suzanne was a turncoat witness and under K.S.A. 60-243 they were entitled to cross-examine her.”
State v. Manning, 19 P.3d 84 (Kan. 2001).
“” K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-243(b) governs the scope of examination and cross-examination and sets forth: “A party may interrogate any unwilling or hostile witness by leading questions.”
Fischer v. State, 295 P.3d 560 (Kan. 2013).
“See Supreme Court Rule 145; K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 60-243(a) (for good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, a trial court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location).”
State v. Washington, 68 P.3d 134 (Kan. 2003).
“K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-243(b). The trial court was within its discretion to limit the cross-examination to the exclusion of details of an incident which occurred several years prior.”
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 89 P.3d 908 (Kan. 2004).
“In addition, plaintiffs’ argument ignores K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-243(d), which provides: “When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard…”
— K.S.A. § 60-243(a) — 12 cases
In the Interest of K.E., 272 P.3d 28 (Kan. 2012).
“In the past K.S.A. 60-243 and Supreme Court Rule 145 generally prohibited telephone testimony.”
In re K.E., 261 P.3d 934 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
“See K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 60-243. Unfortunately, the legislature has not designated what constitutes “appropriate safeguards.”
In the Interest of J.O., 232 P.3d 880 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
“236) and K.S.A. 60-243. Accordingly, we reject the State’s contention that the first requirement of the due process analysis is not satisfied here, and we conclude that Father had a fundamental liberty interest at stake under these circumstances.”
In Re the Est. of Broderick, 191 P.3d 284 (Kan. 2008).
“Specifically, while K.S.A. 60-243 requires that testimony be given orally in open court, it also states “unless otherwise provided by this article.”
Fischer v. State, 295 P.3d 560 (Kan. 2013).
“See Supreme Court Rule 145; K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 60-243(a) (for good cause in compelling circumstances and with appropriate safeguards, a trial court may permit testimony in open court by contemporaneous transmission from a different location).”
— K.S.A. § 60-243(b) — 4 cases
State v. Manning, 19 P.3d 84 (Kan. 2001).
“” K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 60-243(b) governs the scope of examination and cross-examination and sets forth: “A party may interrogate any unwilling or hostile witness by leading questions.”
State v. Washington, 68 P.3d 134 (Kan. 2003).
“K.S.A. 2002 Supp. 60-243(b). The trial court was within its discretion to limit the cross-examination to the exclusion of details of an incident which occurred several years prior.”
— K.S.A. § 60-243(c) — 10 cases
In the Interest of J.O., 232 P.3d 880 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010).
“236) and K.S.A. 60-243. Accordingly, we reject the State’s contention that the first requirement of the due process analysis is not satisfied here, and we conclude that Father had a fundamental liberty interest at stake under these circumstances.”
— K.S.A. § 60-243(d) — 2 cases
Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. v. Filardo, 275 P.3d 869 (Kan. 2012).
“As support for this conclusion, the court cited the federal equivalent to K.S.A. 60-243(d) — Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 43.”
Dragon v. Vanguard Indus., Inc., 89 P.3d 908 (Kan. 2004).
“In addition, plaintiffs’ argument ignores K.S.A. 2003 Supp. 60-243(d), which provides: “When a motion is based on facts not appearing of record the court may hear the matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, but the court may direct that the matter be heard…”
— K.S.A. § 60-243(e) — 1 case
State v. Pham, 675 P.2d 848 (Kan. 1984).
“§ 60-243[e] [1979], comments, p. 259; Vernon’s Kansas C.”
— K.S.A. § 60-243(h) — 1 case
State v. Hobson, 671 P.2d 1365 (Kan. 1983).
“The State argued Suzanne was a turncoat witness and under K.S.A. 60-243 they were entitled to cross-examine her.”
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.