CO · rules
CRE 406
Habit; Routine Practice
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.
History
(Federal Rule Identical.) ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, ‘‘Rule 406: Admis- sibility of Evidence Of Habit or Routine Prac- tice’’, see 23 Colo. Law. 2747 (1994). Rationale behind rule. In case of doubt as to what a person has done, it may be considered more probable that he has done what he has been in the habit of doing, than that he acted otherwise. Bloskas v. Murray, 646 P.2d 907 (Colo. 1982). Testimony that a person is a ‘‘cautious driver’’ is character evidence under CRE 404 and not habit evidence under this rule. People v. T.R., 860 P.2d 559 (Colo. App. 1993). Applied in Bloskas v. Murray, 44 Colo. App. 480, 618 P.2d 719 (1980); Columbia Sav. and Loan Ass’n v. Zelinger, 794 P.2d 231 (Colo. 1990).
Provenance
- Source
- content.leg.colorado.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-15
- Edition
- 2026-09-15
- Content hash
b3159cfefda8e0b4adfb27c7153b444ef7c6e641b95d2e22de33f5e452e0ff08
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.