K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-261 (2026)

Harmless error

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

60-261. Harmless error. Unless justice requires otherwise, no error in admitting or excluding evidence, or any other error by the court or a party, is ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict or for vacating, modifying or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order. At every stage of the proceeding, the court must disregard all errors and defects that do not affect any party's substantial rights.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-261; L. 2010, ch. 135, § 135; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 428 cases (71 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ward, 256 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 57× “Addressing the two issues considered by the Court of Appeals, we affirm the district court and the Court of Appeals, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial and the evidence was sufficient.”
State v. Dunn, 375 P.3d 332 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 4× “On the record in this case, although Count 8 of the charging document was statutorily insufficient, the error was harmless under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-261 and 60- 2105. 8.”
State v. Warledo, 190 P.3d 937 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 8× “The harmless error rule is stated in K.S.A. 60-261: *950 "No error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence and no error or defect in any ruling or order or in anything done or omitted by the court or by any of the parties is ground for granting a new trial or for…”
State v. Crawford, 324 P.3d 311 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 12× “In analyzing whether a defendant was denied a fair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct, an appellate court considers three factors: (1) whether the misconduct was gross and flagrant, (2) whether it was motivated by prosecutorial ill will, and (3) whether 1 the evidence was…”
State v. Scott, 183 P.3d 801 (Kan. 2008). · cites it 8× “Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say that both the K.S.A. 60-261 and the Chapman harmlessness tests have been met.”
State v. Logsdon, 371 P.3d 836 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 4× “If it does not, the trial court should apply K.S.A. 60-261 and determine if there is a reasonable probability that the error will or did affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.”
State v. Inkelaar, 264 P.3d 81 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 8× “ISSUE 2: Did the prosecutor commit misconduct during cross-examination of the defendant's brother? Next, Inkelaar contends the prosecutor committed misconduct during cross-examination of his brother, Tyrone, who testified on behalf of the defense.”
State v. Cosby, 169 P.3d 1128 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 9× “behavior prejudiced the defendant and denied him or her a fair trial commands consideration of three factors: *1143 (1) whether the prosecutor's misconduct was gross and flagrant; (2) whether the misconduct showed ill will on the prosecutor's part; and (3) whether the evidence…”
State v. Gunby, 144 P.3d 647 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 4× “Applying the foregoing template to this case, we are satisfied that the Adriano and Malin testimony about prior violence between Gunby and Sharp would have survived the K.S.A. 60-455 explicit relevance inquiries *661 and particularized weighing of probative value and prejudicial…”
State v. McCullough, 270 P.3d 1142 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 4× “To declare a non-constitutional error harmless the appellate court must apply K.S.A. 60-261 and K.S.A. 60-2105 to determine if there is a reasonable probability that the error will or did affect the trial’s outcome.”
State v. Prine, 200 P.3d 1 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 6× “If the defense requested a limiting instruction and was refused or it otherwise objected to its omission by the district judge, the standard on appeal is that set out in K.S.A. 60-261; to be reversible, the error must be inconsistent *10 with substantial justice.”
State v. Martinez, 236 P.3d 481 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 6× “The erroneous admission of evidence is reversible error only if it is determined that a refusal to remand would be "inconsistent *491 with substantial justice" under K.S.A. 60-261. See State v. Boggs, 287 Kan.”
Show all 428 citing 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.