concurrence">JOHNSON, J.,

concurring: I write separately to be consistent with my separate opinion in State v. Hollingsworth, 289 Kan. 1250, 221 P.3d 1122 (2009), regarding the interpretation of K.S.A. 60-404 as it relates to preserving an appeal of an adverse evidentiary ruling. Nevertheless, I am convinced that any error in the admissibility of the evidence which Wright labels as K.S.A. 60-455 evidence would not have changed the result of the trial and, therefore, I concur in the majority’s result.

In Hollingsworth, I pointed out that the plain language of K.S.A. 60-404 only requires that “there appears of record objection to the evidence timely interposed and so stated as to make clear the specific ground of objection.” Where, as here, the district court has considered and ruled on the admissibility of challenged evidence prior to trial, the court has had an opportunity to conduct the trial without tainted evidence and avoid possible reversal or a new trial, *208i.e., the purpose of the rule which the statute codifies has been accomplished. See State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 342, 204 P.3d 585 (2009) (stating the purpose of the contemporaneous objection rule). Accordingly, I would find that appellate review of Wright’s challenge to the district court’s pretrial evidentiary ruling is not precluded by K.S.A. 60-404.

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress