Reyes v. Missouri Pacific R.R.
589 F.2d 791 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404, evidence of a person's prior misdemeanor convictions for public intoxication is inadmissible character evidence to prove they acted in conformity therewith by being intoxicated on a particular occasion. Such evidence is also inadmissible under Rule 406 as 'habit' evidence if the instances are not sufficiently numerous and regular.
Facts:
- Reyes had four prior misdemeanor convictions for public intoxication spanning a period of three and one-half years.
- Shortly after midnight on June 17, 1974, Reyes was lying on railroad tracks near a crossing in Brownsville, Texas.
- A train owned and operated by Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. approached the crossing where Reyes was.
- The train ran over Reyes, causing him serious injury.
- Reyes was wearing dark clothing at the time of the incident.
- Reyes claimed that an unknown assailant had knocked him unconscious, which is why he was on the tracks.
- The railroad contended that Reyes was intoxicated and had passed out on the tracks.
Procedural Posture:
- Reyes filed a diversity suit against Missouri Pacific Railroad Co. in federal district court, a court of first instance, for negligence.
- Before trial, Reyes filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence of his prior intoxication convictions.
- The district court denied Reyes's motion.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a special interrogatory finding Reyes more negligent than the railroad, which under Texas law barred him from any recovery.
- Reyes, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 Federal Rule of Evidence 404 permit the introduction of a plaintiff's four prior misdemeanor convictions for public intoxication to prove that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by being intoxicated on the night of the accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Hill
No. The Federal Rules of Evidence do not permit the introduction of the plaintiff's prior convictions for public intoxication to prove he was intoxicated on the night of the accident. Federal Rule of Evidence 404(a) explicitly prohibits using evidence of a person's character trait to prove that the person acted in conformity with that character on a particular occasion. The railroad introduced Reyes's prior convictions for the sole purpose of showing he had a character for drinking to excess and that he acted in conformity with that character on the night of the accident, which is a prohibited use of character evidence. Furthermore, the convictions do not qualify as admissible 'habit' evidence under Rule 406. Habit is a specific, regular, and semi-automatic response to a repeated situation, distinguished by its 'adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response.' Four convictions over a three-and-a-half-year period are of insufficient regularity to rise to the level of habit. Because the evidence was both inadmissible and highly prejudicial to the central issue of contributory negligence, its admission constituted a reversible error.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between inadmissible character evidence under FRE 404 and admissible habit evidence under FRE 406. It establishes a high bar for what constitutes a 'habit,' requiring a showing of significant regularity and uniformity that goes far beyond a general disposition or a few past acts. The decision reinforces the core principle that parties should be judged on the facts of the specific event in question, not on their past character or unrelated misconduct. This precedent guides lower courts to be skeptical of attempts to introduce evidence of past intemperance, forcing litigants to prove intoxication on a specific occasion with direct or circumstantial evidence from that occasion, rather than by inference from past behavior.
