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