Rule 406 permits evidence of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice to prove conduct conformed on a particular occasion. No corroboration or eyewitness is required.
Habit requires regularity approaching semi-automatic conduct.
Alternative Names:
Habit and Routine Practice|Rule 406
Why it Matters?
The distinction from character is regularity and specificity, since habit describes an invariable response to a specific situation while character describes a general disposition. Evidence that a person is careful is character, while evidence that they always checked a mirror before merging is habit. Organizational routine practice is the more useful application in defense work, establishing that a procedure was followed without a witness recalling the specific occasion.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What distinguishes habit from character?
What is the useful defense application?
