Opinion ID: 2633395
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Evidence of Habit Was Properly Excluded.

Text: To corroborate his claim that Petrolane and Shoreside had negligently failed to provide him with adequate training, Robles offered evidence intended to show that the companies also routinely failed to train other retailers. The superior court excluded this evidence. Robles claims that this ruling was error, arguing that the excluded testimony was admissible under Alaska Evidence Rule 406 as evidence of a routine business practice. [22] But a trial judge should possess the discretion usual in this field of circumstantial evidence to exclude (evidence of habit) if the habit is not sufficiently regular and uniform, or the circumstances sufficiently similar, to outweigh the danger, if any, of prejudice or confusion. [23] We are convinced after a review of the record that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the disputed evidence did not establish a routine training practice and it was therefore inadmissible under Rule 406.