What is the test for introducing evidence of prior bad acts to prove intent in a criminal case?

Because the admissibility of prior bad acts to prove intent is an exception to the general rule of nonadmissibility, we must scrutinize attempts to introduce such evidence carefully in order to prevent the principles behind the general rule from being eroded. Accordingly, our circuit has established a four-part test for determining when prior bad acts can be admitted into evidence. See United States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir.1991).

Among other things, in intent cases the four-part test requires the government to prove that the prior bad act was not "too remote in time" and that the prior bad act was "similar to the offense charged." See id.; United States v. Mehrmanesh, 689 F.2d 822, 830 (9th Cir.1982) (placing the burden of proof on the government). Here, the majority fails to demonstrate how the government has proved either non-remoteness or similarity with respect to its evidence of Barnes' prior drug sales. ¹