In a burglary case, the prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that the defendant has, on numerous occasions, carried out nightly security checks of their property as part of a regular routine. Which of the following best explains the admissibility of this evidence under the rules of habit and routine practice?
The evidence is admissible when supported by independent witnesses.
The evidence relates to the defendant's regular pattern of behavior under circumstances similar to the case.
The evidence is inadmissible unless the defendant testifies about their routine practices.
The evidence is inadmissible because it relates to character evidence.
The correct answer identifies that the evidence of the defendant's regular security checks constitutes habit evidence, which is admissible to show a pattern of behavior under similar circumstances. Habit evidence differs from character evidence as it pertains to specific repetitive actions rather than general character traits.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is meant by 'habit evidence' in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does habit evidence differ from character evidence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the rules regarding the admissibility of habit evidence in court?