Opinion ID: 2498646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Exclusion of Larva Deposition

Text: Landowner also argues on appeal that it should have been permitted to use the deposition of Larva in place of live testimony to lay the foundation for admission of Larva's report on the cost of replacing the meat processing plant. Heavey relied in part on Larva's report in his valuation of the subject property, and landowner intended to admit Heavey's and Larva's reports during Saroff's testimony. Landowner argues the hearsay exception in K.S.A. 60-460(c)(1) and the authorization for use of a deposition at trial in K.S.A. 60-232(a)(3)(B) permitted it to use Larva's deposition as it sought to here. This issue of statutory interpretation means our standard of review is de novo. See Wolfe Electric, Inc. v. Duckworth, 293 Kan. 375, 400, 266 P.3d 516 (2011). In addition, [w]hen courts are called upon to interpret statutes, the fundamental rule governing our interpretation is that `the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme it enacted.' State ex rel. Stovall v. Meneley, 271 Kan. 355, 378, 22 P.3d 124 (2001). For this reason, when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, courts `need not resort to statutory construction.' In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. 53, 79, 169 P.3d 1025 (2007). Instead, `[w]hen the language is plain and unambiguous, an appellate court is bound to implement the expressed intent.' State v. Manbeck, 277 Kan. 224, Syl. ¶ 3, 83 P.3d 190 (2004). Board of Sumner County Comm'rs v. Bremby, 286 Kan. 745, 754, 189 P.3d 494 (2008). This issue also requires us to consider relevance, and our multistep analysis reviewed above applies here as well. See Shadden, 290 Kan. at 817, 235 P.3d 436 (probative value of evidence reviewed under abuse of discretion; materiality reviewed de novo; legal conclusion reviewed de novo). K.S.A. 60-460(c) allows admission of a deposition at trial in certain circumstances:  Subject to the same limitations and objections as though the declarant were testifying in person, (1) testimony in the form of a deposition taken in compliance with the law of this state for use as testimony in the trial of the action in which offered or (2) if the judge finds that the declarant is unavailable as a witness at the hearing, testimony given . . . in a deposition taken in compliance with laws for use as testimony in the trial of another action, when . . . (B) the issue is such that the adverse party on the former occasion had the right and opportunity for cross-examination with an interest and motive similar to that which the adverse party has in the action in which the testimony is offered. . . . (Emphasis added.) Under the plain language of this hearsay exception, admission of Larva's deposition would have been permitted only if the testimony it contained would have been admissible if he were live at trial. Landowner cannot meet this test because Larva's deposition testimony about his proposal for rebuilding the meat processing plant cannot pass the probative value prong of our relevance inquiry. Larva based his estimate on a drawing provided by Redmond of Redmond and Herndon. Saroff had hired Redmond to prepare a drawing of a new meat processing plant to replace the one existing on the subject property. The record demonstrates, however, that the plant depicted in Redmond's drawing bore little resemblance to the existing plant. The most glaring disconnect: Redmond's plant was 52,400 square feet while the existing plant was 34,000 square feet. Larva's testimony, even if live, would have suffered from another infirmity as well: Larva had no personal knowledge of the existing plant's size, dimensions, or equipment. He admitted at his deposition that he did not know how his estimate for the replacement building related to the current plant. In short, Larva lacked the knowledge, personal or acquired at the trial, required of an expert under K.S.A. 60-456(b)(1). Landowner's argument based on K.S.A. 60-232(a)(3)(B) also is unavailing. The statute provides: At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence applied as though the witness were then present and testifying, may be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had reasonable notice thereof, in accordance with any of the following provisions: . . . (3) The deposition of a witness, whether or not a party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds that: . . . (B) the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the state of Kansas, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition. (Emphasis added.) Although that statute provides that a deposition may be used at a trial if the witness is more than 100 miles away and the sponsoring party did not procure the witness' absence, it does not empower a party wishing to use a deposition to disregard other evidentiary rules and requirements. Because Larva's deposition would have failed both the probative value prong of our relevance test as well as the K.S.A. 60-456(b)(1) knowledge requirement, it remained inadmissible despite K.S.A. 60-232(a)(3)(B).