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

K.S.A. § 60-405 (2026)

Effect of erroneous exclusion of evidence

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

60-405. Effect of erroneous exclusion 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 exclusion of evidence unless it appears of record that the proponent of the evidence either made known the substance of the evidence in a form and by a method approved by the judge, or indicated the substance of the expected evidence by questions indicating the desired answers.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-405; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: State v. Aguirre, 485 P.3d 576 (Kan. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Aguirre, 485 P.3d 576 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 60-405 applies to scenarios involving the exclusion of evidence, not a ruling that evidence may be admissible for impeachment.”
State v. Deal, 23 P.3d 840 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 5× “The State argues that Deal failed to preserve this issue for appeal, as Deal failed to make a proffer of the videotaped testimony as required by K.S.A. 60-405. In attempting to admit the videotaped testimony, the following took place: “[COUNSEL FOR DEAL]: It’s my understanding…”
State v. Davis, 474 P.3d 722 (Kan. 2020). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 60-405 provides, "A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless it appears of record that the proponent of the evidence either made known the substance of…”
Nat'l Bank of Andover v. Kansas Bankers Sur. Co., 225 P.3d 707 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 3× “Second, it contends that KBS then failed to receive court approval of any proffer of the file as purportedly required by K.S.A. 60-405. According to the bank, because KBS never received approval of its proffer, the proffer was not properly before the panel.”
State v. Swint, 352 P.3d 1014 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 4× “Under K.S.A. 60-405, “[a] verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless it appeal's of record that the proponent of the evidence either made known the substance of…”
State v. Pepper, 539 P.3d 203 (Kan. 2023). · cites it 4× “Following a district court's ruling that evidence will not be admitted, the plain language of K.S.A. 60-405 provides that a district court may approve of various forms and methods of proffering a record for purposes of appellate review of that district court ruling.”
State v. Redick, 414 P.3d 1207 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 2× “13 For its part, the State relies on K.S.A. 60-405, which provides that a "verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous exclusion of evidence unless it appears of record that the proponent of…”
Smith v. Printup, 866 P.2d 985 (Kan. 1993). · cites it 2× “The proffer satisfies K.S.A. 60-405. Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence pertinent to whether exemplary damages should be awarded.”
In re Crandall, 430 P.3d 902 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 4× “Before turning to the parties' arguments, we note that disciplinary hearings before a panel are "governed by the Rules of Evidence as set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure." Supreme Court Rule 211(d) (2018 Kan.”
State v. Garza, 236 P.3d 501 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 2× “The question itself does not clearly indicate the substance of the evidence as required by K.S.A. 60-405, which states: "A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of the erroneous exclusion of evidence…”
State v. Patton, 120 P.3d 760 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 2× “However, the defendant failed to comply with K.S.A. 60-405 after the prosecutor’s objection was sustained: “A verdict or finding shall not be set aside, nor shall the judgment or decision based thereon be reversed, by reason of tire erroneous exclusion of evidence unless it…”
The Acquisition of Prop. by Eminent Domain, Unified Sch. Dist. No. 365 v. Diebolt, 320 P.3d 955 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 3× “Issue Preserved As a preliminary matter, the school district argues the Diebolts failed to make a proffer of the evidence they wished to have admitted and therefore failed to preserve the issue because they did not satisfy K.S.A. 60-405, which states: “A verdict or finding shall…”
Show all 75 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.