Rule 406 Habit; Routine Practice

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

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.

Comment

Use of character evidence to prove conduct is prohibited because it is not necessarily true that a person is likely to act in a certain specific way in a certain specific situation merely because the person generally has a certain type of character. Habit, on the other hand, is how a person has repeatedly acted in a certain specific way in a certain specific situation.[1] Rule 406 allows the use of such evidence under the assumption that, if a person has always acted in a certain specific way in a certain specific situation, it is probable the person acted in that way in the specific situation in question. Thus evidence that is not admissible under Rule 404(b) may still be admissible under this rule.[2] This type of evidence is also admissible for an organization, such as a corporation, the rule referring to the routine practice of an organization.[3]

Cases

406.010 Habit describes a person's regular or semi-automatic response to a repeated specific situation, while character refers to a generalized description of a person's disposition.

State v. Spreitz,190 Ariz. 129, 945 P.2d 1260 (1997) (trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting evidence of victim's habit of rarely accepting rides, which was offered to show it was unlikely she willingly...