Sec. 4-6. Habit; Routine Practice

Habit; Routine Practice

Evidence of the habit of a person or the routine

practice of an organization is admissible to prove

that the conduct of the person or the organization

on a particular occasion was in conformity with

the habit or routine practice.

COMMENTARY

While Section 4-4 generally precludes the use of evidence

of a trait of character to prove conforming behavior, Section

4-6 admits evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s

routine practice to prove conformity therewith on a particular

occasion. See, e.g., Caslowitz v. Roosevelt Mills, Inc., 138

Conn. 121, 125–26, 82 A.2d 808 (1951); State v. Williams,

90 Conn. 126, 130, 96 A. 370 (1916); Moffitt v. Connecticut

Co., 86 Conn. 527, 530–31, 86 A. 16 (1913); Birkhamshaw

v. Socha, 156 Conn. App. 453, 471, 115 A.3d 1, cert. denied,

317 Conn. 913, 116 A.3d 812 (2015); State v. Hubbard, 32

Conn. App. 178, 185, 628 A.2d 626, cert. denied, 228 Conn.

902, 634 A.2d 296 (1993). The distinction between habit or

routine practice and trait of character is, therefore, dispositive.

See State v. Whitford, 260 Conn. 610, 641–43, 799 A.2d 1034

(2002) (victim’s violent acts inadmissible as habit evidence to

Sec. 4-6

establish defendant’s claim of self-defense in criminal assault

case). ‘‘Our case law concerning this type of evidence,

although sparse, suggests that habit is not relevant to prove

wilful or deliberate acts.’’ Id., 642.

‘‘Whereas a trait of character entails a generalized descrip­

tion of one’s disposition as to a particular trait, such as honesty,

peacefulness or carelessness, habit is a person’s regular prac-

tice of responding to a particular kind of situation with a specific

type of conduct.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Birkhams-

haw v. Socha, supra, 156 Conn. App. 471; see State v. Whit­

ford, supra, 260 Conn. 641

f character entails a generalized descrip­

tion of one’s disposition as to a particular trait, such as honesty,

peacefulness or carelessness, habit is a person’s regular prac-

tice of responding to a particular kind of situation with a specific

type of conduct.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Birkhams-

haw v. Socha, supra, 156 Conn. App. 471; see State v. Whit­

ford, supra, 260 Conn. 641. ‘‘Habit and custom refer to a

course of conduct that is fixed, invariable, and unthinking, and

generally pertain to a very specific set of repetitive circum­

stances.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Birkhamshaw v.

Socha, supra, 472. ‘‘Testimony as to the habit or practice of

doing a certain thing in a certain way is evidence of what

actually occurred under similar circumstances or conditions

. . . . Evidence of a regular practice permits an inference that

the practice was followed on a given occasion.’’ (Emphasis in

original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Routine practice

of an organization, sometimes referred to as a business cus-

tom or customary practice, is equivalent to a habit of an individ-

ual for purposes of the foregoing standards. Cf. Maynard v.

Sena, 158 Conn. App. 509, 518, 125 A.3d 541, cert. denied,

319 Conn. 910, 123 A.3d 436 (2015).