Rule 406. HABIT; ROUTINE PRACTICE

(a) Admissibility. Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine

practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the

person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine

practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is

corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.

(b) Method of proof. Habit or routine practice may be proved by proof of a

sufficient number of instances of conduct to support a finding that the

habit existed or that the practice was routine.

Maine Restyling Note [November 2014]

Maine Rule 406(a) is identical with Federal Rule 406. Maine Rule

406(b) specifically authorizes the use of evidence of specific instances of

33 “. . . waft . . . .”

34 Update: In State v. Shulikov, 1998 ME 111, ¶¶ 16-17, 712 A.2d 504, the Law Court held that

there was no manifest injustice when a prosecutor cross-examined two witnesses regarding

specific instances of the defendant’s conduct, without the court having first determined outside of

the jury’s presence whether there was a basis for the questions, because the State later

demonstrated on the record it had a factual basis for asking the questions, the defendant

acquiesced in the questioning and did not ask the State to demonstrate its foundation for the

questions, and no further reference to the specific instance was made at trial.

conduct to prove habit or routine practice. The language of Maine Rule 406(b)

has been carried over into the restyled Rule.

Federal Advisory Committee Note

The language of Rule 406 has been amended as part of the restyling of the

Evidence Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and

terminology consistent throughout the rules. These changes are intended to

be stylistic only. There is no intent to change any result in any ruling on

evidence admissibility.

__________________________________________________________________