Habit (N.C.R. Evid. 406)
"[H]abit evidence is a subcategory of the relevance inquiry. Evidence of habit is relevant to prove that 'the conduct of the person . . . on a particular occasion was in conformity' therewith. State v. Fair, 354 N.C. 131, 151, 557 S.E.2d 500, 515 (2001) (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. 8C-1, Rule 406 (1999)), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1114, 153 L. Ed. 2d 162 (2002).
"In determining whether a practice constitutes habit, a court must weigh, on a case-by-case basis, the number of specific instances of the behavior, the regularity of the behavior, and the similarity of the behavior. To rise to the level of habit, the instances of specific conduct must be 'sufficiently numerous to warrant an inference of systematic conduct and to establish one's regular response to a repeated specific situation.' The trial court's ruling on the admissibility of habit evidence may be disturbed only for an abuse of discretion. State v. Fair, 354 N.C. 131, 151, 557 S.E.2d 500, 515-16 (2001) (citations omitted) (quoting Crawford v. Fayez, 112 N.C. App. 328, 335, 435 S.E.2d 545, 500 (1993), disc. review denied, 335 N.C. 553, 441 S.E.2d 113 (1994)), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1114, 153 L. E. 2d 162 (2002).