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

K.S.A. § 60-464 (2026)

Authentication or identification of evidence; examples

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

60-464. Authentication or identification of evidence; examples. (a) In general. To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.

(b) Examples. The following are examples only, not a complete list, of evidence that satisfies the requirement:

(1) Testimony of a witness with knowledge. Testimony that an item is what it is claimed to be.

(2) Nonexpert opinion about handwriting. A nonexpert's opinion that handwriting is genuine, based on a familiarity with it that was not acquired for the current litigation.

(3) Comparison by an expert witness or the trier of fact. A comparison with an authenticated specimen by an expert witness or the trier of fact.

(4) Distinctive characteristics and the like. The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances.

(5) Opinion about a voice. An opinion identifying a person's voice, whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording, based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker.

(6) Evidence about a telephone conversation. For a telephone conversation, evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time to:

(A) A particular person, if circumstances, including self-identification, show that the person answering was the one called; or

(B) a particular business, if the call was made to a business and the call related to business reasonably transacted over the telephone.

(7) Evidence about public records. Evidence that:

(A) A document was recorded or filed in a public office as authorized by law; or

(B) a purported public record or statement is from the office where items of this kind are kept.

(8) Evidence about ancient documents or data compilations. For a document or data compilation, evidence that it:

(A) Is in a condition that creates no suspicion about its authenticity;

(B) was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely be; and

(C) is at least 30 years old when offered.

(9) Evidence about a process or system. Evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result.

(10) Methods provided by a statute or rule. Any method of authentication or identification allowed by law or a rule prescribed by the supreme court.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-464; L. 2021, ch. 65, § 2; July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Robinson, 363 P.3d 875 (Kan. 2015). · cites it 4× “See K.S.A. 60-464 (proper foundation required prior to receiving writing into evidence).”
State v. Hill, 228 P.3d 1027 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 3× “*365 K.S.A. 60-464 provides: “Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence.”
State v. Raskie, 269 P.3d 1268 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 2× “Myspace Evidence Next, Raskie contends for the first time on appeal that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his Myspace postings because the messages were admitted without first establishing a proper foundation under K.”
– State v. Jenkins –, 455 P.3d 779 (Kan. 2020). · cites it 2× “" K.S.A. 60-464. In State v. Robinson, 303 Kan.”
State v. Gonzalez, 145 P.3d 18 (Kan. 2006). “K.S.A. 60-464 requires authentication of a writing before it may be received in evidence.”
State v. Plaskett, 27 P.3d 890 (Kan. 2001). “K.S.A. 60-464 provides that “[ajuthentication may be by evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of its authenticity.”
State v. Dunn, 758 P.2d 718 (Kan. 1988). “The trial judge then refused to admit the letter. Generally, a writing may be authenticated by establishing the genuineness of the writer’s signature or identity of the handwriting, or by indirect or circumstantial evidence without resort to proof of handwriting.”
State v. Waufle, 673 P.2d 109 (Kan. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-464 states the general rule requiring authentication: “Authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence.”
Watco Companies, Inc. v. Campbell, 371 P.3d 360 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Specifically, Watco argues that reliance on the Agreement was erroneous because the document was not properly authenticated as required by K.S.A. 60-464 and was therefore inadmissible as evidence in support of summary judgment.”
State v. Wilson, 728 P.2d 1332 (Kan. Ct. App. 1986). “See K.S.A. 60-464. Defendant argues that, while the custodian of the records from the phone company need not have testified, someone who was qualified by knowledge of the facts was required to identify the phone records.”
Pac. Indem. Co. v. Berge, 473 P.2d 48 (Kan. 1970). “In summary, none of the Exhibits mentioned was delivered to defendant's attorney before March 20, 1968, as directed by the pretrial order (or before trial); none was authenticated in compliance with the requirements of K.S.A. 60-464 and 60-465; and those claimed to be official…”
State v. Milum, 447 P.2d 801 (Kan. 1968). “Defendant's objection at trial, and here, is that there was insufficient foundation regarding the authenticity of the note, particularly since there was an absence of proof that it was written or signed by the defendant.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 60-464(a) — 5 cases
Sutherland v. Sutherland Trust, 567 P.3d 873 (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
Discover Bank v. May (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Alexander (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
State v. Dreher (Kan. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Dechant (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 60-464(b)(1) — 1 case
Discover Bank v. May (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 60-464(b)(5) — 1 case
State v. Alexander (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
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.