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

K.S.A. § 60-456 (2026)

Testimony in form of opinion or inferences

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

60-456. Testimony in form of opinion or inferences. (a) If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to such opinions or inferences as the judge finds: (1) Are rationally based on the perception of the witness; (2) are helpful to a clearer understanding of the testimony of the witness; and (3) are not based on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge within the scope of subsection (b).

(b) If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (1) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

(c) Unless the judge excludes the testimony, the judge shall be deemed to have made the finding requisite to its admission.

(d) Testimony in the form of opinions or inferences otherwise admissible under this article is not objectionable because it embraces the ultimate issue or issues to be decided by the trier of the fact.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-456; L. 2014, ch. 84, § 2; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 267 cases (39 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: State v. Ballou, 448 P.3d 479 (Kan. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ballou, 448 P.3d 479 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 17× “" The district court agreed with the State's position that K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-456 did not apply, reasoning Stockard was a fact witness.”
State v. Aguirre, 485 P.3d 576 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 14× “Prior to its amendment in 2014, K.S.A. 60-456 required courts to assess the admissibility of expert testimony under the standard articulated in Frye v.”
State v. Gonzalez, 145 P.3d 18 (Kan. 2006). · cites it 16× “2d at 60-61 (“Expert testimony founded upon hearsay is inadmissible and contraiy to K.S.A. 60-456[b].”), indicated that he was inclined to disallow Dr.”
State v. Hubbard, 430 P.3d 956 (Kan. 2018). · cites it 10× “He argued when the officers testified about smelling marijuana, they were experts under K.S.A. 2017 Supp. 60-456, so their testimony would only be admissible after demonstrating the reliability of their methods-or, in this case, their ability to identify marijuana by smell.”
Khalil-Alsalaami v. State, 486 P.3d 1216 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 6× “K.S.A. 60-456 does not permit expert opinion testimony on subjects beyond the witness' qualification.”
State v. Shadden, 235 P.3d 436 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 9× “As to the second step of the evidentiary analysis, the parties agree that the applicable rules are K.S.A. 60-456 and the foundation rule that is known as the Frye test.”
Smart v. BNSF Ry. Co., 369 P.3d 966 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 9× “Thereafter, the Kansas Legislature amended K.S.A. 60-456 through K.S.A. 60-458, effectively abrogating Kansas courts’ long-held rebanee on the Frye test for scientific evidence, and adopting the test found in Daubert, 509 U.”
In re Care & Treatment of Cone, 435 P.3d 45 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 8× “The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing.”
In Re the Care & Treatment of Colt, 211 P.3d 797 (Kan. 2009). · cites it 14× “He argues that his jury should not have been permitted to consider evidence of his prior crimes, particularly those that had no sexual component; that the State's expert based his opinion on inadmissible evidence in violation of K.S.A. 60-456(b); and that the evidence was…”
State v. Lowrance, 312 P.3d 328 (Kan. 2013). · cites it 8× “60-447 as contended by Lowrance, and not unduly prejudicial; (4) the trial judge did not err in admitting opinion testimony of a lay witness regarding Lowrance’s state of mind because the testimony satisfied the criteria of K.S.A. 60-456; (5) there was sufficient evidence for a…”
State v. Tully, 262 P.3d 314 (Kan. 2011). · cites it 7× “Here, the first step — relevance—is not contested by the parties as the presence of force was highly contested at trial.”
– State v. Lyman –, 455 P.3d 393 (Kan. 2020). · cites it 7× “K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 60-456." (Emphasis added.”
Show all 267 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-456(6) — 1 case
State ex rel. Metzler v. Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health Servs. Corp., 605 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1980).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(a) — 46 cases
State v. Crum, 184 P.3d 222 (Kan. 2008).
State v. Willis, 475 P.3d 324 (Kan. 2020).
State v. Ballou, 448 P.3d 479 (Kan. 2019). “" The district court agreed with the State's position that K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-456 did not apply, reasoning Stockard was a fact witness.”
Pullen v. West, 92 P.3d 584 (Kan. 2004).
State v. Sinnard, 543 P.3d 525 (Kan. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(a)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Johnson (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Davis (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(b) — 133 cases
State v. Aguirre, 485 P.3d 576 (Kan. 2021). “Prior to its amendment in 2014, K.S.A. 60-456 required courts to assess the admissibility of expert testimony under the standard articulated in Frye v.”
State v. Ballou, 448 P.3d 479 (Kan. 2019). “" The district court agreed with the State's position that K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-456 did not apply, reasoning Stockard was a fact witness.”
State v. Gonzalez, 145 P.3d 18 (Kan. 2006). “2d at 60-61 (“Expert testimony founded upon hearsay is inadmissible and contraiy to K.S.A. 60-456[b].”), indicated that he was inclined to disallow Dr.”
In Re the Care & Treatment of Colt, 211 P.3d 797 (Kan. 2009). “He argues that his jury should not have been permitted to consider evidence of his prior crimes, particularly those that had no sexual component; that the State's expert based his opinion on inadmissible evidence in violation of K.S.A. 60-456(b); and that the evidence was…”
In re Care & Treatment of Cone, 435 P.3d 45 (Kan. 2019). “The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing.”
— K.S.A. § 60-456(b)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Hayes, 720 P.2d 1049 (Kan. 1986).
State v. Papen, 50 P.3d 37 (Kan. 2002).
Marshall v. Mayflower Transit, Inc., 822 P.2d 591 (Kan. 1991).
Strategic Energy Income Fund III v. Stephens Energy Grp. (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(b)(2) — 5 cases
State v. Patton, 120 P.3d 760 (Kan. 2005).
State v. Tully, 262 P.3d 314 (Kan. 2011). “Here, the first step — relevance—is not contested by the parties as the presence of force was highly contested at trial.”
State v. Fuller, 802 P.2d 599 (Kan. Ct. App. 1990).
Mellies v. Nat'l Heritage, Inc., 636 P.2d 215 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. Morris, 196 P.3d 422 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(b)(2)(3) — 1 case
N&B Enter., Inc. v. English (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(b)(l) — 7 cases
Manhattan Ice & Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of Manhattan, 274 P.3d 609 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Gonzalez, 145 P.3d 18 (Kan. 2006). “2d at 60-61 (“Expert testimony founded upon hearsay is inadmissible and contraiy to K.S.A. 60-456[b].”), indicated that he was inclined to disallow Dr.”
State v. Hayes, 720 P.2d 1049 (Kan. 1986).
State v. Strauch, 718 P.2d 613 (Kan. 1986).
State v. Broyles, 36 P.3d 259 (Kan. 2001).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(c) — 8 cases
State v. Reyna, 234 P.3d 761 (Kan. 2010).
State v. Tully, 262 P.3d 314 (Kan. 2011). “Here, the first step — relevance—is not contested by the parties as the presence of force was highly contested at trial.”
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. v. Praeger, 75 P.3d 226 (Kan. 2003).
State v. James, 288 P.3d 504 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
State v. McConnell, 688 P.2d 1224 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(d) — 36 cases
State v. Shadden, 235 P.3d 436 (Kan. 2010). “As to the second step of the evidentiary analysis, the parties agree that the applicable rules are K.S.A. 60-456 and the foundation rule that is known as the Frye test.”
State v. Baker, 135 P.3d 1098 (Kan. 2006).
Est. of Belden v. Brown Cnty., 261 P.3d 943 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Tully, 262 P.3d 314 (Kan. 2011). “Here, the first step — relevance—is not contested by the parties as the presence of force was highly contested at trial.”
State v. Torres, 121 P.3d 429 (Kan. 2005).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(fe) — 5 cases
State v. Garcia, 664 P.2d 1343 (Kan. 1983).
State v. Williams, 670 P.2d 1348 (Kan. 1983).
Dickey v. Corr-A-Glass & Topping Bldg. Serv., 601 P.2d 691 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).
State v. Powell, 687 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1984).
Stingley v. Interpace Corp., 575 P.2d 526 (Kan. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(fi) — 1 case
Stingley v. Interpace Corp., 575 P.2d 526 (Kan. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 60-456(h) — 2 cases
State v. Marks, 647 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1982).
State v. Waufle, 673 P.2d 109 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983).
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.