K.S.A. § 60-441
Evidence to test a verdict or indictment
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
KS-LEGkslegislature.org
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
60-441. Evidence to test a verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict or an indictment no evidence shall be received to show the effect of any statement, conduct, event or condition upon the mind of a juror as influencing him or her to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-441; January 1, 1964.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1966–2024 · leading case: State v. Kleypas
State v. Kleypas (2001)
“The two statutes bearing on the issue are K.S.A. 60-441 and K.S.A. 60-444, which provide: "Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict or an indictment no evidence shall be received to show the effect of any statement, conduct, event or condition upon the mind of a juror as…”
State v. Cook (2006)
“2d 1109 (1994), that the obstacle presented by K.S.A. 60-441 to such a showing is to establish how juror misconduct affected a verdict.”
State v. Franklin (1998)
“The State objected to the calling of the jurors as being violative of the limitations set forth in K.S.A. 60-441. The court overruled the objection “to allow the defendant to make his record.”
Cornejo v. Probst (1981)
“lxxiv , and K.S.A. 60-441. The trial court overruled the motion for two reasons: (1) the motion was inadequate because it failed to comply with K.”
Williams v. Lawton (2009)
“The questions, according to the dissent, did not violate the limitations of K.S.A. 60-441 because they generally related to the action taken by the jury, not the jury’s mental processes.”
Verren v. City of Pittsburg (1980)
“" K.S.A. 60-441. "This article shall not be construed to ( a ) exempt a juror from testifying as a witness to conditions or occurrences either within or outside of the jury room having a material bearing on the validity of the verdict or the indictment, except as expressly…”
Williams v. Lawton (2007)
“Kansas recognized a limited need to permit juror testimony in the enactment of two statutes, today embodied in K.S.A. 60-441 and K.S.A. 60-444(a). These statutes provide: "Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict or an indictment no evidence shall be received to show the…”
Saucedo v. Winger (1993)
“K.S.A. 60-441. A verdict may not be impeached by (1) questions *729 as to a juror's views or conclusions, or (2) questions as to the reasons for those views or as to factors used in determining those conclusions, or (3) questions involving what influences those views or…”
State v. Johnson (2008)
“” The State suggests that the juror’s statement was a mental process, which cannot be used to show juror misconduct under K.S.A. 60-441. On the other hand, Johnson contends that the juror’s statement was not an example of a mental process but was a statement showing that a juror…”
State v. Fenton (1980)
““e) That the trial judge questioned the members of the jury as to what effect, if any, the threat had upon their deliberation and determination in this matter.”
State v. Kaiser (1996)
“The defendant contended that Tunley’s verdict of guilty was the product of coercion by other jurors, and he filed a motion requesting that the trial court grant a new trial or recall the jurors for a hearing.”
State v. Robinson (2015)
“See K.S.A. 60-441; K.S.A. 60-444. Robinson claims he was prejudiced by Juror 147's consultation of the Bible, his decision to bring it into the jury room, and his comments referencing it during 348 deliberations.”
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.