Opinion ID: 1794583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: habit evidence in kentucky.

Text: All of the cases applying Kentucky's common law rule of exclusion are more than fifty years old [8] and many involved what is more correctly categorized as character evidence, not habit evidence. Dawson v. Shannon, 225 Ky. 635, 9 S.W.2d 998, 998-99 (1928) (habit of drinking); Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Adams' Adm'r, 205 Ky. 203, 265 S.W. 623, 627 (1924) (habit of being a careful and prudent driver); City of Madisonville v. Stewart, Ky., 121 S.W. 421, 423 (1909) (habit of drunkenness); Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Taylor's Adm'r, Ky., 104 S.W. 776, 778 (1907) (custom of reckless driving). Nevertheless, there are other cases where the excluded evidence was properly treated as evidence of habit. Cincinnati, N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co. v. Hare's Adm'x, 297 Ky. 5, 178 S.W.2d 835, 838 (1944) (evidence that the deceased driver always looked both ways before entering a railroad crossing, used his lowest gear, and always crossed slowly), overruled on other grounds, Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Fisher, Ky., 357 S.W.2d 683 (1962); Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Gardner's Adm'r, 140 Ky. 772, 131 S.W. 787, 788 (1910) (evidence that the deceased had never been known to be intoxicated); Lexington Ry. Co. v. Herring, Ky., 96 S.W. 558, 560-61 (1906) (evidence that the plaintiff habitually boarded and departed street cars while they were still in motion); Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Riddle's Adm'x, Ky., 72 S.W. 22, 23 (1903) (evidence that the plaintiff had never taken an alcoholic drink in his life). [9] The evidence excluded in those cases would satisfy today's definition of relevant evidence, i.e., evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. KRE 401. Under KRE 402, all relevant evidence is admissible unless excluded by the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Kentucky, by acts of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, by these rules, or by other rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Evidence of habit to prove conforming conduct is not excluded by any constitutional provision, statute, rule of evidence, or rule of this Court; and KRE 402 contains no exception for preexisting case law. Garrett v. Commonwealth, Ky., 48 S.W.3d 6, 13 (2001). Presumably, KRE 402 has already superseded our common law exclusionary rule with respect to evidence of habit and routine practice. If not, then we should take this occasion to overrule our outdated precedents and bring Kentucky into the mainstream of American jurisprudence.