K.S.A. » Chapter 60
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 60-449 (2026)

Habit or custom to prove specific behavior

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

60-449. Habit or custom to prove specific behavior. Evidence of habit or custom is relevant to an issue of behavior on a specified occasion, but is admissible on that issue only as tending to prove that the behavior on such occasion conformed to the habit or custom.

History: L. 1963, ch. 303, 60-449; January 1, 1964.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1966–2020 · leading case: State v. Gonzales, 783 P.2d 1239 (Kan. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gonzales, 783 P.2d 1239 (Kan. 1989). · cites it 2× “K.S.A. 60-449 states: “Evidence of habit or custom is relevant to an issue of behavior on a specified occasion, but is admissible on that issue only as tending to prove that the behavior on such occasion conformed to the habit or custom.”
Burchett v. Commonwealth, 98 S.W.3d 492 (Ky. 2003). · cites it 2× “406; Kansas: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-449 ; Louisiana: La.”
State v. Gaines, 926 P.2d 641 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 2× “The State contends that the toe sucking testimony was properly admitted under K.S.A. 60-449 and K.S.A. 60-450 as habit evidence.”
State v. Hunt, 176 P.3d 183 (Kan. 2008). “” Hunt acknowledges K.S.A. 60-449, which addresses the admissibility of relevant habit evidence: “Evidence of habit or custom is relevant to an issue of behavior on a specified occasion, but is admissible on that issue only as tending to prove that the behavior on such occasion…”
Hardesty v. Coastal Mart, Inc., 915 P.2d 41 (Kan. 1996). · cites it 3× “K.S.A. 60-449 states: “Evidence of habit or custom is relevant to an issue of behavior on a specified occasion, but is admissible on that issue only as tending to prove that the behavior on such occasion conformed to the habit or custom.”
Draskowich v. City of Kansas City, 750 P.2d 411 (Kan. 1988). “Defendants maintain that the proffered testimony was admissible as proof of habit or custom under K.S.A. 60-449, which states: “Evidence of habit or custom is relevant to an issue of behavior on a specified occasion, but is admissible on that issue only as tending to prove that…”
Frans v. Gausman, 6 P.3d 432 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “The trial court specifically considered whether plaintiffs had amassed sufficient evidence to qualify for admission to establish a habit or custom under K.S.A. 60-449 and K.S.A. 60-450 and found that they had not.”
State v. Mitchell, 932 P.2d 1012 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “60-448, as well as K.S.A. 60-449. The testimony in question was proffered through Joe Jones, Linda Dodson’s brother.”
Hays v. Underwood, Adm'r, 411 P.2d 717 (Kan. 1966). “) *273 K.S.A. 60-449 is, in effect, a statutory affirmation of this general rule of law.”
Frase v. Henry, 444 F.2d 1228 (10th Cir. 1971). “60-448 which excludes evidence of a trait of a person's character with respect to care or skill, or whether the testimony was admissible under K.S.A. 60-449, which allows testimony of a habit or custom.”
Frase v. Henry, 444 F.2d 1228 (10th Cir. 1971). “or whether the testimony was admissible ■ under K.S.A. § 60-449, which allows testimony of a habit or custom.”
Romain v. Shahouri (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “" K.S.A. 60-449. "Evidence of specific instances of behavior is admissible to prove habit or custom if the evidence is of a sufficient number of such instances to warrant a finding of such habit or custom.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.