Kansas Statutes Annotated
K.S.A. § 60-404 (2026)
Effect of erroneous admission of evidence
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KS-LEGkslegislature.org
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
60-404. Effect of erroneous admission of evidence. A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous admission of evidence unless there appears of record objection to the evidence timely interposed and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of objection.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-404; January 1, 1964.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 528
cases (148 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: State v. King, 204 P.3d 585 (Kan. 2009).
State v. King, 204 P.3d 585 (Kan. 2009). “The Court of Appeals held that in the absence of a contemporaneous objection under K.S.A. 60-404, King’s Doyle claim was not preserved for review.”
State v. McCaslin, 245 P.3d 1030 (Kan. 2011). “3d 585 (2009), reaffirmed our commitment to the requirement that, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-404, "evidentiary errors shall not be reviewed on appeal unless a party has lodged a timely and specific objection to the alleged error at trial.”
State v. Miller, 427 P.3d 907 (Kan. 2018). “K.S.A. 60-404 generally precludes an appellate court from reviewing an evidentiary challenge absent a timely and specific objection to the admission of evidence made on the record when the evidence is presented at trial.”
State v. George, 466 P.3d 469 (Kan. 2020). “A defendant may not evade the contemporaneous objection requirement demanded by K.S.A. 60-404 by asserting an evidentiary claim on appeal under the guise of prosecutorial error.”
State v. Scheetz, 541 P.3d 79 (Kan. 2024). “The statute has the practical effect of confining a party's appellate arguments to the grounds presented to the district court.”
State v. Lowery, 427 P.3d 865 (Kan. 2018). “He argues the prosecutor erred during the evidentiary portion of the trial by violating orders in limine and by making improper comments and gestures in front of the jury.”
State v. Hollingsworth, 221 P.3d 1122 (Kan. 2009). “Hollingsworth further argues that there were several "red flags" in the interview that should have indicated to the detectives that he was "quiet[,] young[,] and apparently influenced by his significantly older codefendants." The State responds that the issue was not preserved…”
State v. Ballou, 448 P.3d 479 (Kan. 2019). “A timely interposed objection, as required by the plain language of K.S.A. 60-404, is one that gives the district court the opportunity to make the ruling contemporaneous with an attempt to introduce evidence at trial.”
State v. Wright, 224 P.3d 1159 (Kan. 2010). “60-455 evidence pretrial, the issue is not properly before the court now under K.S.A. 60-404. We have interpreted that statute's requirement of a "timely" objection to evidence to require a contemporaneous objection during trial.”
State v. Keys, 510 P.3d 706 (Kan. 2022). “K.S.A. 60-404. 12. An appellate court reviews issues of alleged jury instruction error to determine whether the instruction is both legally and factually appropriate.”
State v. Barber, 353 P.3d 1108 (Kan. 2015). “A party satisfies this requirement by making a timely trial objection that incorporates pretrial arguments, even if the party does not repeat those arguments, as long as the pretrial arguments were sufficiently specific to inform the trial court of the basis for the trial…”
State v. Sinnard, 543 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2024). “K.S.A. 60-404 directs that a verdict shall not be set aside, or a judgment reversed, based on the erroneous admission of evidence without a timely and specific objection.”
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.