Evidence or crime, wrong, etc. is admissible for another purpose such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

Evidence or crime, wrong, etc. is admissible for another purpose such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.

• A. Evidence or crime, wrong, etc. is admissible for another purpose such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.
• B. It is never admissible for any purpose.
• C. It may be used to prove the defendant's guilt without any other purpose.
• D. It is admissible to prove character.

Answer: (A)

Evidence of other crimes or wrongs can be admissible for purposes other than proving the defendant’s guilt, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation or plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. The rule allows these acts to be admitted when they’re relevant to proving one of those proper issues, not to show the defendant is a bad person. When such evidence is used for a proper purpose, it is weighed for probative value against potential prejudice, typically under a Rule 403 balancing. This is why the statement in the option is correct: it reflects that prior bad acts can be admissible for these specific, legitimate purposes. The other choices misstate the rule by saying the evidence is never admissible, can prove guilt by itself, or can be used to prove character.

Evidence of other crimes or wrongs can be admissible for purposes other than proving the defendant’s guilt, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation or plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident. The rule allows these acts to be admitted when they’re relevant to proving one of those proper issues, not to show the defendant is a bad person. When such evidence is used for a proper purpose, it is weighed for probative value against potential prejudice, typically under a Rule 403 balancing. This is why the statement in the option is correct: it reflects that prior bad acts can be admissible for these specific, legitimate purposes. The other choices misstate the rule by saying the evidence is never admissible, can prove guilt by itself, or can be used to prove character.