A trait, characteristic, property, or feature of a person (including a person's mental or emotional state or condition) is admissible to show the conduct of the person if the trait, characteristic, property, or feature is not or is not considered a trait of character, a propensity, or a disposition.

Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, pin? (1965) (jury instructions in murder trial that created a mandatory presumption that shifted to defendant the burden of proof on intent violated constitutionally-mandated requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal...The law is disordered on the question of when a presumption in a criminal trial violates the constitutionally-mandated standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Leonard v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 499 F.3d 419, 442 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that the district court erroneously admitted statements made by insurer's agent to policyholders as "habit" evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 because "evidence was lacking to suggest that [insurer agent's] statements...If behavior is largely volitional rather than semi-volitional or semi-automatic, it is hot habit.

Diaz v. United States, 232 U.S. 442, 450 (1911) (Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 450 (1911) "So, of the fact that it was hearsay, it suffices to observe that when evidence of that character is admitted without objection it is to be considered and given its natural probative effect as if it were in...If an opponent of evidence wishes to preserve a claim, for later review, that a trial court erred in admitting evidence, the opponent ordinarily must object to the offered evidence before the trial court rules that the evidence is admissible. If an opponent fails to make such an objection, the opponent will ordinarily be said to have waived or forfeited its claim that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence.