Court Opinion

ID: 9579091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:51:22.822278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:16.803509
License: Public Domain

Six, J.,
concurring: The majority opines that “the concept of res gestae has generated some confusion.” I agree. Res gestae, as the majority observes, is governed by Article 4, Chapter 60 of Kansas Statutes Annotated. In State v. Jones, 204 Kan. 719, 728, 466 P.2d 283 (1970), we said:
“In 1964 Kansas adopted the code of civil procedure which included ‘Article 4. — Rules of Evidence.’ K.S.A. 60-402 states the scope of the rules as follows:
‘Except to the extent to which they may be relaxed by other procedural rule or statute applicable to the specific situation, the rules set forth in this article shall apply in every proceeding, both criminal and civil, conducted by or under the supervision of a court, in which evidence is produced.’
“Thus, the rules of evidence have been codified and govern in all cases notwithstanding the prior case law which might be inconsistent with the statute.” (Emphasis added.)
Our holding here, and in State v. Clark, 261 Kan. 460, 471, 931 P.2d 664 (1997), focuses on the codification of the Kansas rules of evidence. Res gestae as a concept is obsolete, has outlasted its usefulness, and should be abolished. See Prater and Klemme, Res Gestae Raises Its Ugly Head, 65 J.K.B.A. 24 (Oct. 1996). As a federal matter, in view of adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence, res gestae is no longer part of the law of evidence. Stephens v. Miller, 13 F.3d 998, 1003 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 513 U.S. 808 (1994) (quoting Miller v. Keating, 754 F.2d 507, 509 [3d Cir. 1985]).