60-450. Opinion and specific instances of behavior to prove habit or custom. Testimony in the form of opinion is admissible on the issue of habit or custom. Evidence of specific instances of behavior is admissible to prove habit or custom if the evidence is of a sufficient number of such instances to warrant a finding of such habit or custom.
History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-450; January 1, 1964.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Discussing enforcement of antidiscrimination laws, Richard B. Dyson and Elizabeth D. Dyson, 14 K.L.R. 29 (1965).
"Other Vices, Other Crimes: An Evidentiary Dilemma," M. C. Slough, 20 K.L.R. 411, 413 (1972).
"The Entrapment Defense in Drug Cases," Richard H. Seaton, 41 J.B.A.K. 217, 239 (1972).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Individual practices of two persons not sufficient to establish a standard of general practice or usage. Trimble, Administrator v. Coleman Co., Inc., 200 Kan. 350, 354, 437 P.2d 219.
2. Evidence of specific instances of behavior admissible to prove habit or custom if number of instances is sufficient to warrant such finding. Williams v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 204 Kan. 772, 780, 465 P.2d 975.
3. Evidence of habit or custom is relevant to behavior on specific occasion. Frase v. Henry, 444 F.2d 1228, 1232.
4. Admission of evidence of deceased's good character during state's case in chief and before attack thereon error; new trial ordered. State v. Bradley, 223 Kan. 710, 712, 576 P.2d 647.
5. Attempted rape victim's propensity to form social acquaintances with men on spontaneous basis as habit v. character trait examined. State v. Gonzales, 245 Kan. 691, 700, 783 P.2d 1239 (1989).
6. Admissibility of acts constituting crime that has been expunged examined where act may be relevant to fact in issue. Pope v. Ransdell, 251 Kan. 112, 129, 833 P.2d 965 (1992).
7. Under facts, evidence of prior falls to prove habit inadmissible in trip and fall case. Hardesty v. Coastal Mart, Inc., 259 Kan. 645, 653, 915 P.2d 41 (1996).
8. Evidence of defendant's past participation in sexual act performed on rape victim not admissible as evidence of habit. State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752, 765, 926 P.2d 641 (1996).
9. Insufficient evidence to establish habit or custom. Frans v. Gausman, 27 Kan. App. 2d 518, 6 P.3d 432 (2000).
10. Mentioned in discussion of admissibility of relevant habit evidence. State v. Hunt, 285 Kan. 855, 865, 176 P.3d 183 (2008).
|
|