Lexplug logoLexplug

Perrin v. Anderson

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
784 F.2d 1040 (1986)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Evidence of a person's repeated, specific, and uniform violent responses to a particular stimulus may be admissible as evidence of a 'habit' under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 to prove that the person acted in conformity with that habit on a subsequent occasion.


Facts:

  • Terry Kim Perrin was involved in a minor highway accident and subsequently walked to his nearby home.
  • Two Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers, Donnie Anderson and Roland Von Schriltz, went to Perrin's home to obtain information about the accident.
  • The troopers knocked for ten to twenty minutes before Perrin opened the door, at which point he behaved erratically.
  • When Trooper Von Schriltz moved his hand toward his gun, Perrin slammed the door shut.
  • The door bounced open, and Perrin immediately attacked Trooper Anderson, leading to a fierce struggle.
  • During the fight, Perrin repeatedly kicked Anderson in the face and chest while the troopers unsuccessfully tried to subdue him with chokeholds.
  • Fearing he was about to lose consciousness and be killed, Trooper Anderson drew his weapon and shot Perrin, killing him.

Procedural Posture:

  • Deborah Kay Perrin, as administratrix of Terry Kim Perrin's estate, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers Donnie Anderson and Roland Von Schriltz in federal district court.
  • The case was tried before a jury.
  • The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, Anderson and Von Schriltz.
  • The plaintiff, Perrin's estate, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does evidence of a deceased individual's prior violent encounters with uniformed police officers constitute admissible evidence of a 'habit' under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 to prove that the individual was the first aggressor in a fatal confrontation with police?


Opinions:

Majority - Logan, J.

Yes, this evidence constitutes an admissible 'habit.' While evidence of prior specific violent acts is generally inadmissible as character evidence under FRE 404 and 405 to prove a person acted as the aggressor, it can be admitted as evidence of a 'habit' under FRE 406. The court first analyzed the evidence under the rules for character. It reasoned that in a civil case with criminal-in-nature allegations like this § 1983 wrongful death claim, the defendant officers could introduce evidence of the victim's character for violence to suggest he was the first aggressor. However, under FRE 405, the proper method for such circumstantial proof is limited to reputation or opinion testimony, not specific instances of conduct. Therefore, the trial court erred by admitting the testimony under a character evidence theory. The court then found the evidence was nonetheless admissible as proof of a habit under FRE 406. Habit is defined as a 'regular practice of meeting a particular kind of situation with a certain type of conduct.' The testimony of four officers about at least five separate incidents demonstrated that Perrin 'invariably reacted with extreme violence to any contact with a uniformed police officer.' This uniformity of response to a specific stimulus was sufficient to establish a habit, making the testimony about prior specific incidents proper to show that Perrin's conduct on this occasion was in conformity with his habit.



Analysis:

This case is significant for clarifying the boundary between inadmissible character evidence (FRE 404) and admissible habit evidence (FRE 406). It establishes that a pattern of violent, reactive behavior, if sufficiently regular and tied to a specific stimulus, can be legally defined as a 'habit' rather than a general character trait. This holding provides a pathway for admitting evidence of specific past acts that would otherwise be excluded, particularly in civil rights and self-defense cases where the identity of the first aggressor is a central issue. The decision broadens the concept of habit beyond mundane, semi-automatic actions to include more complex and volitional patterns of conduct, influencing how courts analyze and admit evidence of a party's past behavior.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Perrin v. Anderson (1986) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Perrin v. Anderson