Rule 406: Habit; Routine Practice

Rule 406 creates an important exception to the general ban on propensity reasoning. While Rule 404 prohibits using character to prove conduct, Rule 406 allows evidence of habit or routine practice to prove that a person or organization acted consistently with that habit on a particular occasion.

The critical distinction is between character and habit. Character is a general disposition (e.g., 'she's a careful driver'), while habit is a specific, regular response to a particular situation (e.g., 'she always signals before turning' or 'she always buckles her seatbelt before starting the car'). Habit requires specificity, regularity, and near-automatic or semi-reflexive behavior. The more specific and invariable the behavior, the more likely it qualifies as habit rather than character.

Organizational routine practice is the business equivalent of individual habit. Evidence that a company always follows a specific procedure — like always mailing confirmation letters on the day an order is received — is admissible to prove the procedure was followed on the occasion in question. The rule explicitly states that corroboration and eyewitness testimony are not required, though their presence strengthens the evidence.