60-458.
Expert opinion or inference; facts or data relied upon, admissibility.
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. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible into evidence in order for the opinion or inference to be admitted. Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that the probative value of such facts or data in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-458; L. 2014, ch. 84, § 4; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
19
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case:
State v. Gonzalez, 145 P.3d 18 (Kan. 2006).
State v. Gonzalez, 145 P.3d 18 (Kan. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Kaiser pointed to K.S.A. 60-458 and, after acknowledging that under the rules of evidence an expert witness is allowed to state an opinion and the reasons therefore without first specifying the data upon which the opinion is based, noted that upon cross-examination the witness…”
State v. Corbett, 130 P.3d 1179 (Kan. 2006).
· cites it 2× “” K.S.A. 60-458 provides: “Questions calling for the opinion of an expert witness need not be hypothetical in form unless the judge in his or her discretion so requires, but the witness may state his or her opinion and reasons therefor without first specifying data on which it…”
Smart v. BNSF Ry. Co., 369 P.3d 966 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
“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.”
– State v. Lyman –, 455 P.3d 393 (Kan. 2020).
“" Counsel for the State explained to the court, without objection, that "[w]e've stipulated to the admissibility of medical records that form the basis of opinion of people for purposes of their direct and cross-examination.”
In Re Est. of Bernatzki, 460 P.2d 527 (Kan. 1969).
· cites it 3× “The rule must be considered in connection with K.S.A. 60-458 by which it is unnecessary for the witness to specify the data before expressing his opinion.”
State v. Carr, 502 P.3d 546 (Kan. 2022).
“K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 60-458 ("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.”
State v. Garcia, 664 P.2d 1343 (Kan. 1983).
“It does not necessarily follow, however, that this rule entitled the appellant to introduce the videotape of the interview into evidence to permit the jury to see for themselves the behavior of the appellant on which Dr.”
State v. Albright, 46 P.3d 1167 (Kan. 2002).
“Under K.S.A. 60-458, when an expert has given an opinion without specifying the data upon which the opinion was based, the underlying data is a proper subject of cross-examination.”
State v. Dargatz, 614 P.2d 430 (Kan. 1980).
“K.S.A. 60-458 states that when an expert witness has given an opinion without specifying the data upon which the opinion is based, the underlying data is a proper subject of cross-examination.”
State v. Kaiser, 918 P.2d 629 (Kan. 1996).
“” K.S.A. 60-458. Dr. Logan adequately specified the data upon which his evaluation has based.”
Leona Derr v. Safeway Stores, Inc., Etc., 404 F.2d 634 (10th Cir. 1969).
“” K.S.A. 60-458. 6 . As a part of her case on negligence and proximate cause, the plaintiff proffered: “But the witness is qualified as an expert to show that if you are going to use this type of stacking device, that it must be carefully stacked and one must be careful to get…”
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.