How does Rule 406 treat habit or routine practice in proving conduct?

• A. It is never admissible
• B. It is admissible only to prove intent
• C. It is admissible to prove that the person acted in accordance with habit or routine practice
• D. It is admissible only for impeachment

Answer: (C)

The main concept being tested is that Rule 406 allows evidence of habit or routine practice to prove conduct on a particular occasion. Habit is a person’s regular response to a specific situation, performed almost automatically. When there’s a well-established habit, you can use that habit evidence to show the person acted in accordance with it in the current situation.

Routine practice works the same way, but it applies to a person’s organization or another entity. If a group has a regular routine in a given set of circumstances, evidence of that routine practice can be admitted to show the organization acted in conformity with it here.

This is distinct from general character evidence, which looks at a person’s overall character to infer how they would act in a specific instance (and is not usually admissible for that purpose). Habit and routine practice are more specific and reliable indicators of likely conduct in a given situation.

So, the best answer is that habit or routine practice is admissible to prove that the person acted in accordance with that habit or routine practice.