Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.In Curry v. Bennett 301 SW 3d 502, (Ky. App. 2009), the trial court's decision to admit testimony it is the normal practice, or custom, in the American Saddlebred horse industry that the trainer acts as the agent for the horse owner was affirmed on appeal. Since there was not anything especially prejudicial about this testimony that might be reason to exclude it under KRE 403, the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting it.
The horses were in two different states. The horse sex was totally clinical.
Tom Fox, J. D.
Southern Specialty Law Publishing Company
A division of Accountable Kentucky Incorporated
a Kentucky Non-profit corporation
----------- oOo ----------
Self-help Law Books on Amazon
Subscribe to RSS Post feed
This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.