60-462.
Credibility of declarant.
Evidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant inconsistent with a statement received in evidence under an exception to K.S.A. 60-460, is admissible for the purpose of discrediting the declarant, though he or she had no opportunity to deny or explain such inconsistent statement. Any other evidence tending to impair or support the credibility of the declarant is admissible if it would have been admissible had the declarant been a witness.
History:
L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-462; January 1, 1964.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Exclusion of evidence of prior inconsistent statements within discretion of trial court; no abuse shown. State v. Watie, Heard and Heard, 223 Kan. 337, 345, 574 P.2d 1368.
2. Evidence of admissible hearsay may be discredited with prior inconsistent statement without giving declarant opportunity to explain. Thoren v. Lawrence Memorial Hospital, 23 Kan. App. 2d 328, 333, 929 P.2d 815 (1997).
3. Hearsay exception of admitting preliminary hearing testimony discussed and applied. State v. Stano, 284 Kan. 126, 131, 138, 139, 159 P.3d 931 (2007).
State v. Stano, 159 P.3d 931 (Kan. 2007). · cites it 5דIn the alternative, the defendant argues that the statements should have been admitted under K.S.A. 60-462. Standard of Review “This court has previously recognized that under the state and federal Constitutions a defendant is entitled to present the theory of his or her defense…”
State v. Watie, Heard & Heard, 574 P.2d 1368 (Kan. 1978). “The appellant Watie contends K.S.A. 60-462 requires the admission of the prior inconsistent statements here.”
Thoren v. Lawrence Mem'l Hosp., 929 P.2d 815 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4ד60-422(b); K.S.A. 60-462. Because of these two rules of evidence, Thoren’s interpretation cannot be correct.”
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.