Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

Habit vs character admissibility often hinges on

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 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. Scope and Purpose of Rule 406: Provides that evidence of a person's habit or an organization's routine practice is admissible to prove that the person or organization acted in conformity with that habit or routine practice on a particular occasion. Places habit and routine practice on a different footing than character evidence: o Habit and routine practice evidence is admissible to prove conforming conduct; character evidence is not. Habit vs. Character: Admissibility often hinges on whether the particular conduct is classified as habit (or routine practice) or character. Habit is much narrower than character. Character = "generalized description of a person's disposition, or of the disposition in respect to a general trait" Habit = "one's regular response to a repeated specific situation", a "regular practice of meeting a particular kind of situation with a specific type of conduct" or "semi...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online