Fill and Sign the United States V Imotexas Lawyer Form

500 3 Cautionary Instruction Similar Acts Evidence (Rule 404(b), F.R.E.) You have just heard evidence of acts of the Defendant which may be similar to those charged in the indictment, but which were committed on other occasions. You must not consider any of this evidence in deciding if the Defendant commit t ed the acts charged in the indictment. How ever, you may consider this evidence for other, very limited, purposes. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt from other evidence in this case that the Defendant did commit the acts charged in the indictment, then you may consider evidence of the similar act s allegedly commit t ed on other occasions to determine [whether the Defendant had the state of mind or intent necessary to commit the crime charged in the indictment] or [whether the Defendant had a motive or the opportunity to commit the acts charged in the indictment] or [whether t he Defendant act ed according t o a plan or in preparation for commission of a crime] or [whether the identity of t he Defendant as the perpetrator of t he crime charged here has been established] or [whether t he Defendant commit t ed the acts for which the Defendant is on trial by accident or mistake.] ANNOTATIONS AND COMMENTS Rule 404. [F.R.E.] Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct ; Except ions; Other Crimes * * * * * (b) Other crimes, wrongs, or act s. - - Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity , intent, preparation, plan, know ledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial not ice on good cause shown, of t he general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial. Unit ed States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) en banc, cert. denied, 440 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 1244, 59 L.Ed.2d 4 72 (19 79 ), disc uses at length t he test s t o be applied in admitting or excluding evidence under Rule 404(b); and, more specifically, the different standards that apply depending upon the purpose of the evidence, i.e., to show intent versus identity, for example. See note 15 at pages 911-9 12 . Beechum also approves a limiting inst ruction similar to t his one. See not e 23 at pages 917-918.