Perrin v. Anderson
784 F.2d 1040 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a person's prior specific, violent acts, if sufficiently numerous and uniform in response to a specific stimulus, may be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 as habit evidence to prove that the person acted in conformity with that habit and was the first aggressor.
Facts:
- Terry Kim Perrin drove his car into the back of another vehicle on an Oklahoma highway.
- After determining the other occupants were uninjured, Perrin walked to his nearby home.
- 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, exhibiting erratic behavior.
- When Trooper Von Schriltz moved his hand toward his gun to secure it, Perrin slammed the door.
- The door bounced open, and Perrin immediately attacked Trooper Anderson.
- A fierce struggle ensued, during which the two officers unsuccessfully attempted to subdue Perrin with chokeholds as he repeatedly kicked Anderson in the face and chest.
- Fearing he was about to lose consciousness and that Perrin would kill both officers, Anderson shot and killed Perrin without issuing a warning.
Procedural Posture:
- The administratrix of Terry Kim Perrin's estate filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action against Troopers Donnie Anderson and Roland Von Schriltz in federal district court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- During the trial, the court admitted, over the plaintiff's objection, testimony from four police officers detailing previous violent encounters with Perrin.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant officers.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing the district court erred in its evidentiary rulings.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, is testimony detailing a decedent's prior specific violent encounters with uniformed police admissible as evidence of habit to prove that the decedent was the first aggressor in a fatal confrontation with police?
Opinions:
Majority - Logan, J.
Yes. Testimony of prior specific acts may be admissible as habit evidence to prove action in conformity therewith. The court first analyzed the admissibility of the officers' testimony under the character evidence rules, FRE 404(a) and 405. It held that while the exception allowing evidence of a victim's character in a criminal case can extend to a civil rights case that is 'in nature criminal,' the method of proof was improper. Under FRE 405, when character is used circumstantially to prove action in conformity (i.e., that Perrin was the first aggressor), proof is limited to reputation or opinion evidence, not specific instances of conduct. Therefore, admitting the testimony as character evidence was an error. However, the court found the evidence was properly admitted under FRE 406 as evidence of a habit. A habit is a 'regular practice of meeting a particular kind of situation with a certain type of conduct, or a reflex behavior in a specific set of circumstances.' The testimony from four officers about at least five separate, extremely violent, and similar reactions to encounters with uniformed police was sufficient to establish a habit, especially considering the trial court limited the testimony from a larger offer of proof. Thus, the evidence was admissible to prove that Perrin's conduct was in conformity with his habit of reacting violently to police, making him the first aggressor.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the critical, and often fine, distinction between inadmissible character evidence and admissible habit evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The decision establishes that a pattern of conduct can cross the threshold from character to habit if it is sufficiently specific, regular, and reflexive. By allowing evidence of prior specific acts under the 'habit' theory in a self-defense context, the court provides a pathway for admitting highly probative evidence that would otherwise be excluded by the general ban on character evidence. This ruling is particularly significant for § 1983 excessive force cases where the identity of the first aggressor is a central issue, as it allows defendants to introduce a victim's history of specific, similar violent responses.
