Colo. R. Evid. 406
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.
(Federal Rule Identical.)
CRE 406
Annotation Law reviews. For article, "Rule 406: Admissibility of Evidence Of Habit or Routine Practice", 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). .