Opinion ID: 1794583
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: proof of habit.

Text: The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws promulgated the first version of the Uniform Rules of Evidence (URE) in 1953. 13A Uniform State Laws Annotated 3 (West 1986). As work progressed on the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Uniform Rules were redrafted with a view to conform to the Federal Rules so far as practicable. Id. at 5. The final version of the Uniform Rules was promulgated in August 1974 and recommended for adoption in all states. Id. at iii. URE 406 (Habit; Routine Practice) provides: (a) Admissibility. Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. (b) Method of proof. Habit or routine practice may be proved by testimony in the form of an opinion or by specific instances of conduct sufficient in number to warrant a finding that the habit existed or that the practice was routine. The Federal Rules of Evidence were adopted by Congress in 1975. Pub.L. 93-595, § 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat.1932. FRE 406 is identical to URE 406(a). However, Congress did not adopt URE 406(b) and most jurisdictions that have adopted a version of URE 406 have also omitted subsection (b). [2] See Jack B. Weinstein and Margaret A. Berger, 2 Weinstein's Evidence ¶ 406[05] (Matthew Bender 1989). In jurisdictions that have adopted URE 406(a), but not URE 406(b), the method of proof of habit or routine practice is determined on a case-by-case basis. Typically, it is established by testimony of a knowledgeable witness that there exists such a habit or practice. John W. Strong, 1 McCormick on Evidence, supra, § 195, at n. 20. Of course, here, the proof was even stronger since it consisted of the admission of Appellant, himself, the person most knowledgeable of his own habits. If proof of habit is by specific instances of conduct, [3] there must be evidence of enough such instances to establish the existence of a habit, and the circumstances under which the habit is followed must be present at the time of the conduct sought to be proved. Id. § 195, at n. 22, 23; see also John Henry Wigmore, 2 Evidence § 375 (3d ed. Little Brown & Co.1940). The elements of a habit are generally said to be (1) regularity, (2) specificity, and (3) an involuntary or semiautomatic response. 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 393 (1994). The last element, however, does not require that the response be reflexive or nonvolitional, [4] but only that it be uniform. Steinberg v. Arcilla, 194 Wis.2d 759, 535 N.W.2d 444, 447 (App.1995) (a person's `regular response' need not be `semi-automatic' or `virtually unconscious' in order to be admissible). [A]dequacy of sampling and uniformity of response are key factors. FRE 406 Advisory Committee's Note, supra; Wright and Graham, supra, note 3, § 5233. The requirements for admission of habit evidence were summarized as follows in the frequently cited case of Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 561 F.2d 494 (4th Cir.1977): It is only when the examples offered to establish such pattern of conduct or habit are numerous enough to base an inference of systematic conduct and to establish one's regular response to a repeated specific situation or, to use the language of a leading text, where they are sufficiently regular or the circumstances sufficiently similar to outweigh the danger, if any, of prejudice and confusion, that they are admissible to establish pattern or habit. In determining whether the examples are numerous enough and sufficiently regular, the key criteria are adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response, or, as an article cited with approval in the note to Rule 406, Federal Rules of Evidence, puts it, on the adequacy of sampling and the ratio of reactions to situations. These criteria and this method of balancing naturally follow from the definition of habit itself as stated in the Model Code of Evidence: Habit means a course of behavior of a person regularly repeated in like circumstances. Id. at 511 (citations omitted). The court went on to explain that ratio of reactions to situations means a comparison of the number of instances in which any such conduct occurs with the number in which no such conduct took place. Id. at 512. Thus, in United States Football League v. National Football League, 842 F.2d 1335 (2d Cir.1988), evidence that the National Football League disregarded antitrust advice three or four times over a twenty-year period was insufficient to prove a pattern of behavior amounting to habit, id. at 1373; in Weisenberger v. Senger, 381 N.W.2d 187 (N.D.1986), a brother of a deceased motorist was precluded from testifying that the deceased, who was reported to have been driving over the center line at the time of the fatal collision, had a habit of driving on the extreme right side of the road, because the brother was not shown to have observed the decedent's driving habits with sufficient frequency to be able to testify that such conduct was habitual, id. at 191; and in Waldon v. Longview, 855 S.W.2d 875 (Tex.App.1993), three prior similar accidents over a six-year period were held insufficient to establish habit. Id. at 879. Specifically with reference to intemperate habits, it was held in Reyes v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 589 F.2d 791 (5th Cir.1979), that evidence of four prior convictions of public intoxication was insufficient evidence of habit to be probative of intoxication on a given occasion. Id. at 794. However, in Loughan v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 749 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir.1985), evidence from three sources, including the plaintiff, himself, that he routinely kept a cooler of beer in his truck during working hours, regularly consumed alcohol during working hours, and normally had something to drink in the early morning hours was sufficient evidence of habit to be probative of his intoxication at the time of his on-the-job injury. Id. at 1524. And in Keltner v. Ford Motor Co., 748 F.2d 1265 (8th Cir.1984), evidence that the plaintiff regularly drank a six-pack of beer four nights a week was held to be sufficient evidence of habitual conduct to be probative of his intoxication on the occasion of his injury. Id. at 1269. There is authority for the proposition that, in a criminal case, evidence of a habit of committing the charged offense is inadmissible because [e]vidence of these habits would be identical to the kind of evidence that is the target of the general rule against character evidence. United States v. Mascio, 774 F.2d 219, 222 n. 5 (7th Cir.1985) ( quoting Edward W. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence § 195, at 574 (3d ed. West 1984)). As applied to the facts of this case, that would mean that the prosecution could not introduce evidence under the guise of habit that Appellant had caused other fatal vehicle collisions in the past. Such evidence would be admissible only if it satisfied the requirements of KRE 404(b)(1) or (2). For other applications of the habit rule, see generally John P. Ludington, Annotation, Habit or Routine Practice Evidence Under Uniform Evidence Rule 406, 64 A.L.R.4th 567 (1988); George H. Genzel, Annotation, Admissibility of Evidence of Habit, Customary Behavior, or Reputation as to Care of Motor Vehicle Driver or Occupant, on Question of His Care at Time of Occurrence Giving Rise to His Injury or Death, 29 ALR 3d 791 (1970).