Habit or custom to prove specific behavior

60-449. Habit or custom to prove specific behavior. Evidence of habit or custom is relevant to an issue of behavior on a specified occasion, but is admissible on that issue only as tending to prove that the behavior on such occasion conformed to the habit or custom. History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-449; January 1, 1964. Law Review and Bar Journal References: "Other Vices, Other Crimes: An Evidentiary Dilemma," M. C. Slough, 20 K.L.R. 411, 413 (1972). CASE ANNOTATIONS 1. Section applied; refusal of trial court to admit evidence (dissenting opinion). Hays v. Underwood, Administrator, 196 Kan. 265, 273, 411 P.2d 717. 2. Evidence of habit or custom admissible only as tending to prove that behavior on specified occasion conformed to habit or custom. 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. Cited; evidence of habit or custom as irrelevant where acts taken raised questions of negligence examined. Draskowich v. City of Kansas City, 242 Kan. 734, 738, 750 P.2d 411 (1988). 6. 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). 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 admissible as evidence of identity. State v. Gaines, 260 Kan. 752, 765, 926 P.2d 641 (1996). 9. Trial court ruling that testimony regarding custom and habit lacked credibility was inadmissible not erroneous. State v. Mitchell, 23 Kan. App. 2d 413, 422, 932 P.2d 1012 (1997). 10. Insufficient evidence to establish habit or custom. Frans v. Gausman. 27 Kan. App. 2d 518, 6 P.3d 432 (2000). 11. Mentioned in discussion of admissibility of relevant habit evidence. State v. Hunt, 285 Kan. 855, 864, 176 P.3d 183 (2008). Previous | Next LEGISLATIVE COORDINATING COUNCIL General Policies 2026 Archived LCC Documents Archived LCC Meetings REVISOR OF STATUTES Archived Session Documents Archived School Finance Documents USEFUL LINKS Session Laws Kansas Administrative Regulations OTHER LEGISLATIVE SITES Kansas Legislature Administrative Services Division of Post Audit Research Department Contact Us PDF Help www.ksrevisor.gov 2026