Court Opinion

ID: 9784980
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:59:58.240888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:02.109806
License: Public Domain

Six, J.,
concurring: In section IV, the Prior Bad Acts portion of the opinion, the majority notes the trial court relied on res gestae in admitting certain testimony. I agree with the majority’s rejection of res gestae as a rationale for admission. I write separately in a continuing effort to encourage trial courts to analyze this type of evidence under K.S.A. 60-460, the approach intended by the legislature’s codification of our evidentiary rules. See Arguello, The Marital Discord Exemption to Hearsay: Fact or Judicially Legislated Fiction, 46 Kan. L. Rev. 62,113 (1997). Although Drach does not brief the specific testimony complained of, it may have been admissible under K.S.A. 60-460(d)(3). Res gestae, as an independ*652ent evidentiary concept, deserves a proper burial. See State v. Edwards, 264 Kan. 177, 203, 955 P.2d 1276 (1998) (Six, ]., concurring).