Opinion ID: 1794583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: habit evidence in other jurisdictions.

Text: In addition to the enactment by Congress of FRE 406, forty-three of the fifty states have adopted URE 406(a) either by rule or by statute. [5] Five additional states have common law rules admitting evidence of habit to prove conduct with some variation. Georgia and New York admit habit evidence by common law under circumstances virtually identical to those described in URE 406(a). Sams v. Gay, 161 Ga.App. 31, 288 S.E.2d 822, 824 (1982); Halloran v. Virginia Chem., Inc., 41 N.Y.2d 386, 393 N.Y.S.2d 341, 361 N.E.2d 991, 995 (1977). Florida admits evidence of habit by common law only if the occurrence of the conforming conduct is corroborated by other evidence. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 414 So.2d 1169, 1171 (Fla.Ct.App.1982). [6] (Note that the instant case would satisfy Florida law because the evidence of Appellant's marijuana habit was circumstantially corroborated by the positive drug screen, the evidence of his demeanor and conduct prior to the accident, his statement to a hospital medical technician that I haven't smoked any pot since this morning  (emphasis added), and the treating physician's entry in the medical records that Appellant [a]dmits to one joint this morning (emphasis added).) Illinois admits habit evidence only when there is no eyewitness testimony with respect to the conduct at issue. Grewe v. West Wash. Cty., 303 Ill.App.3d 299, 236 Ill.Dec. 612, 707 N.E.2d 739, 744-45 (1999). [7] Missouri courts have admitted habit evidence, but the precise boundaries of the rule remain unclear. Hawkins v. Whittenberg, 587 S.W.2d 358, 363-64 (Mo.App.1979) (discussing same). Nevertheless, Missouri follows Illinois (at a minimum) and admits habit evidence in the absence of eyewitness testimony. Gerhard v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 299 S.W.2d 866, 872 (Mo.1957). See also State v. Hemby, 63 S.W.3d 265, 269 & n. 2 (Mo.App.2001) (rejecting habit evidence when based on only two prior experiences and noting that the issue has been addressed rarely in Missouri). Except for Kentucky, Massachusetts is the only jurisdiction that purports to preclude evidence of habit to prove conforming conduct. For the purpose of proving that one has or has not done a particular act, it is not competent to show that he has or has not been in the habit of doing other similar acts. Figueiredo v. Hamill, 385 Mass. 1003, 431 N.E.2d 231, 232 (1982) ( quoting Davidson v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co., 325 Mass. 115, 89 N.E.2d 201, 205 (1949)). Nevertheless, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has clarified that habit evidence is not inadmissible in all circumstances. Massachusetts draws a distinction between evidence of personal habit and evidence of business habit or custom.... [E]vidence of business habits or customs is admissible to prove that an act was performed in accordance with the habit. For example, this court has upheld the admission of evidence of business habits or customs to prove that a letter had been sent, that an insurance application had not been blank when approved, that the police would have impounded money if found in a fugitive's possession, and that goods unaccompanied with a receipt had not been paid for. Palinkas v. Bennett, 416 Mass. 273, 620 N.E.2d 775, 777 (1993) (internal citations omitted). And in O'Connor v. SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories, Inc., 36 Mass.App.Ct. 360, 631 N.E.2d 1018 (1994), the Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that a laboratory technician could testify to her usual practice of noting a deviation in a urine sample and the significance of the absence of such a notation on the chain of custody form that she signed, id. at 1019, carefully (and somewhat dubiously) characterizing such usual practice evidence as admissible evidence of a business custom rather than inadmissible evidence of an individual habit. Id. at 1021. Massachusetts also has a statute that admits evidence of a decedent's habits in an action brought against the decedent's personal representative to rebut evidence of statements made or documents drafted by the decedent when living. Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 233, § 66. Thus, Kentucky is the only jurisdiction that precludes, under all circumstances, admission of evidence of individual habit or of the routine practice of an organization as circumstantial evidence of conforming conduct on a specific occasion.