Short answer. Generally no. Rule 130, Section 35 bars using evidence that you did or didn't do something once to prove you did or didn't do the same or a similar thing another time. It can, however, be received for a narrower purpose — to prove things like intent, knowledge, identity, plan, or a habit or custom.

What the law says

Evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not admissible to prove that he or she did or did not do the same or similar thing at another time; but it may be received to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like.

Rule 130, Section 35 — Similar acts as evidence. Read the full provision →

The general rule: propensity is not proof

Section 35's core rule is that evidence you did something on one occasion cannot be offered simply to argue you probably did the same or a similar thing again on another occasion. The law does not let a case be built on the theory that a person's past conduct makes them more likely, in a general sense, to have acted the same way this time. Character-by-implication is not how facts get proven under this rule.

The narrow purposes the rule does allow

The same evidence is not always excluded outright — it can be received for a different, specific purpose: to prove a specific intent or knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, habit, custom or usage, and the like. The distinction is what the evidence is being offered to establish. Offered to show 'he's the type who does this,' it is barred. Offered to show, for instance, a distinctive method that identifies who committed a specific act, or a routine practice relevant to a disputed fact, it can come in.

Why the line between the two is easy to blur

In practice, the same piece of evidence can look like forbidden propensity evidence or a permitted showing of plan or habit depending on how it is framed and what it is actually offered to prove. A party offering prior-conduct evidence needs to be able to articulate, specifically, which of the recognized purposes — intent, knowledge, identity, plan, scheme, habit, or custom — the evidence supports, rather than simply asserting relevance in general terms, because a court weighing admissibility is evaluating that stated purpose against the general bar.

What this means if it comes up in your case

If the opposing side tries to introduce something you did on a separate occasion, the first question is what they say it proves. If the real argument is simply that you have done this kind of thing before, that is the theory Section 35 excludes. If instead it is offered toward a recognized purpose such as a distinctive habit or a plan connecting separate acts, its admissibility turns on whether it genuinely fits one of those categories rather than functioning as disguised character evidence.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.