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

K.S.A. § 60-463 (2026)

Multiple hearsay

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

60-463. Multiple hearsay. A statement within the scope of an exception to K.S.A. 60-460 shall not be inadmissible on the ground that it includes a statement made by another declarant and is offered to prove the truth of the included statement if such included statement itself meets the requirements of an exception.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-463; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: State v. Boldridge, 57 P.3d 8 (Kan. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Boldridge, 57 P.3d 8 (Kan. 2002). · cites it 4× “K.S.A. 60-463 governs the admission of multiple hearsay: “A statement within the scope of an exception to K.”
State v. Coones, 339 P.3d 375 (Kan. 2014). · cites it 2× ““A statement within the scope of an exception . . . shall not be inadmissible on the ground that it includes [another hearsay statement] if such included statement itself meets the requirements of an exception.”
State v. Owens, 496 P.3d 902 (Kan. 2021). “See K.S.A. 60-463 ("A statement within the scope of an exception to K.”
State v. Brown, 173 P.3d 612 (Kan. 2007). “Double Hearsay The accurate characterization of the level of hearsay could be significant in a case because when an out-of-court statement includes a statement made by another declarant and both statements are offered for the truth of the matter stated, both levels of hearsay…”
State v. Gutierrez-Fuentes, 508 P.3d 378 (Kan. 2022). · cites it 2× “No one at trial explicitly discussed the implications of K.S.A. 60-463, which addresses admissibility in the context of multiple hearsay—often called hearsay within hearsay.”
State v. Hobson, 671 P.2d 1365 (Kan. 1983). “See K.S.A. 60-463. The appellant argues there was no evidence of bad faith by the declarants and no incentive for them to falsify or distort the statements allegedly made by Crumm.”
State v. Moody, 132 P.3d 985 (Kan. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “The district court also held that Woodard's testimony regarding statements Rodriguez claimed Moody made was admissible as multiple hearsay under K.S.A. 60-463 and also met the exception to hearsay under K.”
State v. Baker, 607 P.2d 61 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 2× “At the second trial, Linda Rainey’s testimony about Janice Hardenett’s statements to her was admissible; it was founded upon the provisions of K.S.A. 60-463, entitled “Multiple Hearsay,” as that statute relates to the hearsay exception in K.”
State v. Cheeks, 908 P.2d 175 (Kan. 1995). “See K.S.A. 60-463, which discusses multiple hearsay.”
State v. Humphery, 978 P.2d 264 (Kan. 1999). “K.S.A. 60-463 provides: “A statement within the scope of an exception to K.”
State v. Falke, 703 P.2d 1362 (Kan. 1985). “K.S.A. 60-463. In the case at bar, the defendant sought to introduce records which contained statements made by the defendant about his past drug and alcohol abuse.”
In the Interest of N.D.G., 883 P.2d 89 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “K.S.A. 60-463; State v. Davis, 2 Kan. App.”
Show all 14 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.