How does Rule 404(b) regulate evidence of other crimes or wrongs used in court, particularly for character evidence?

How does Rule 404(b) regulate evidence of other crimes or wrongs used in court, particularly for character evidence?

• A. Admissible to prove character
• B. Not admissible to prove character, may be admissible for motive, opportunity, intent, identity, or plan with limitations and balancing
• C. Admissible only if prior conviction
• D. Always admissible

Answer: (B)

Rule 404(b) limits how evidence of other crimes or wrongs can be used. It bars using such evidence to prove a person’s character and to show that they acted in conformity with that character on the current occasion. But it doesn’t ban all use of other acts. If the act is offered for purposes other than character—such as showing motive, opportunity, intent, identity, or plan—it may be admissible, as long as its probative value for that purpose outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice and it is properly limited (to avoid signaling propensity and with a limiting instruction to the jury). That’s why the best choice is that the evidence isn’t admissible to prove character, but may be admissible for motives like motive, opportunity, intent, identity, or plan, with necessary limitations and balancing. The other options misstate the rule: evidence is not automatically admissible to prove character, it isn’t required to involve a prior conviction, and it isn’t always admissible in all cases.

Rule 404(b) limits how evidence of other crimes or wrongs can be used. It bars using such evidence to prove a person’s character and to show that they acted in conformity with that character on the current occasion. But it doesn’t ban all use of other acts. If the act is offered for purposes other than character—such as showing motive, opportunity, intent, identity, or plan—it may be admissible, as long as its probative value for that purpose outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice and it is properly limited (to avoid signaling propensity and with a limiting instruction to the jury).

That’s why the best choice is that the evidence isn’t admissible to prove character, but may be admissible for motives like motive, opportunity, intent, identity, or plan, with necessary limitations and balancing. The other options misstate the rule: evidence is not automatically admissible to prove character, it isn’t required to involve a prior conviction, and it isn’t always admissible in all cases.