Reyes v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Evidence

EvidenceCharacter evidenceHabit evidenceHarmless errorFed. R. Evid. 404Fed. R. Evid. 406character vs. habitpublic intoxication convictions

Facts

Reyes was run over by the railroad's train while lying on tracks near a crossing in Brownsville, Texas. He claimed he had been knocked unconscious by an unknown assailant, while the railroad claimed he was contributorily negligent because he was intoxicated and had passed out on the tracks. Before trial, Reyes moved in limine to exclude evidence of four prior misdemeanor convictions for public intoxication, but the district court denied the motion. Reyes then disclosed the convictions on direct examination to lessen their impact, and the jury found him more negligent than the railroad.

Issue

Whether four prior misdemeanor convictions for public intoxication were admissible to show that Reyes was intoxicated on the night of the accident, either as character evidence under Rule 404 or as habit evidence under Rule 406. Also, whether Reyes waived the objection by introducing the convictions himself after losing the motion in limine.

Rule

Under Rule 404, evidence of a person's character or character trait is inadmissible when offered to prove that the person acted in conformity with that trait on a particular occasion, unless a recognized exception applies. Under Rule 406, conduct is admissible as habit only when it reflects a regular response to a repeated specific situation; adequacy of sampling and uniformity of response are controlling considerations. A party does not waive preserved error by introducing damaging evidence on direct examination after an adverse ruling on a motion in limine in order to reduce its prejudicial effect.

🔒

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 negligence suit in federal court in Houston, Dana Mendez claims that a delivery van struck her while she was crossing a service road. Falcon Crest Logistics contends Dana stumbled into traffic because she was drunk and seeks to introduce six-year-old municipal convictions for disorderly intoxication to show she was intoxicated that night.

Should the court admit the prior convictions for that stated purpose?

Explanation. The majority opinion treats prior intoxication convictions offered solely to prove intoxication on the occasion in suit as classic propensity evidence barred by Rule 404. The critical inquiry is the purpose for which the evidence is offered. Here, the stated purpose is to show Dana was drunk because she has a disposition to become intoxicated, which is inadmissible character-conformity reasoning. The rule applies in civil as well as criminal cases.