Perrin v. Anderson

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986 · Evidence

784 F.2d 1040 (10th Cir. 1986)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 404(a)Rule 405Rule 406Rule 803(8)(C)Rule 411character evidencehabit evidence

Facts

After a traffic accident, Troopers Von Schriltz and Anderson went to Perrin's nearby home to obtain information. According to the officers, Perrin behaved erratically, slammed the door, then attacked Anderson, and a violent struggle followed until Anderson shot and killed Perrin while claiming self-defense. At trial, over plaintiff's objections, the court admitted testimony from four officers about prior violent encounters with Perrin, a Shooting Review Board report concluding Anderson acted within department guidelines, a defense remark that defendants would be personally liable for any judgment, and evidence that pornographic materials were strewn throughout Perrin's home and accessible to his young son. Plaintiff argued these rulings were erroneous and prejudicial.

Issue

Whether the district court erred in admitting prior specific-act testimony about Perrin's violent encounters with police, the Shooting Review Board report, the defense statement that defendants would be personally liable for any judgment, and evidence of pornography in Perrin's home. More specifically, the court had to decide the proper application of Rules 404, 405, 406, and 803(8)(C), and whether the challenged evidence or argument was improper or unduly prejudicial.

Rule

In a civil case whose central issue is criminal in nature, a defendant may use the Rule 404(a) exceptions to offer evidence of a victim's pertinent character trait, but if character is offered circumstantially to show conduct on the occasion in question, Rule 405 permits proof only by reputation or opinion, not specific acts, unless character is directly in issue in the strict sense. Specific incidents may be admitted under Rule 406 as habit evidence when they establish a regular, invariable response to a particular kind of situation. Under Rule 803(8)(C), evaluative public-agency reports, including conclusions or opinions, are admissible if prepared pursuant to authority granted by law and if the sources or circumstances do not indicate untrustworthiness, assessed by factors such as timeliness, investigator skill, hearing, and possible motivation problems. When punitive damages are at issue, the ultimate source of payment is relevant to the jury's assessment of punitive damages.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal civil rights suit in New Mexico, Elena Ruiz alleges that Albuquerque police officer Mason Pike used unjustified deadly force against her brother during a street encounter. Pike claims self-defense and seeks to introduce testimony that the decedent had a reputation in the community for violent aggression when confronted physically.

Should the court allow Pike to invoke the victim-character exception to offer this evidence?

Explanation. The majority held that although Rule 404(a)'s exceptions are written for criminal cases, a civil defendant may use them when the central issue is criminal in nature, such as whether a killing or violent use of force was justified. The evidence is relevant to who was the aggressor, even if not known to the defendant beforehand. Thus the exception may be invoked here.