California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Balcom, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 666, 7 Cal.4th 414, 867 P.2d 777 (Cal. 1994):
Other jurisdictions have expressed the same rule. "It is well-established in [the federal second] circuit that evidence of subsequent similar acts, including other crimes, is admissible in the discretion of the trial court if 'it is [7 Cal.4th 426] substantially relevant for a purpose other than merely to show defendant's criminal character or disposition', [citation], and its probative worth outweighs its potential prejudicial impact. [Citations.]" (United States v. Cavallaro (2d Cir.1977) 553 F.2d 300, 305, italics added.) " 'Both prior conduct and subsequent conduct may be relevant ..., depending on the circumstances and the probative value of the collateral conduct sought to be proven.' " (People v. Tipton (1980) 78 Ill.2d 477, 36 Ill.Dec. 687, 691, 401 N.E.2d 528, 532, and cases cited, italics in original.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.