Under the Federal and State Rule of Evidence 404(b), how is evidence of other crimes or wrongs treated in a court?

Under the Federal and State Rule of Evidence 404(b), the treatment of evidence related to other crimes, wrongs, or acts is specifically geared towards its admissibility for certain purposes beyond merely proving a person's character. The rule allows such evidence to be considered for purposes like demonstrating intent, opportunity, motive, knowledge, or absence of mistake or accident.

When the evidence is admitted to show intent or opportunity, it serves to establish a relevant context for the case at hand. For instance, if a defendant’s prior wrong conduct is similar to the offense being tried, it can support the argument that the defendant acted with a certain intent relevant to the current charges. This is particularly helpful in cases where the defendant’s state of mind is an element that needs to be established.

In contrast, using evidence solely to showcase a person's character and suggest that they acted in conformity with that character is prohibited under this rule. This is to prevent prejudice that might arise from jurors making decisions based on who the person is perceived to be rather than on the evidence presented concerning the specific charge. Therefore, while evidence of other crimes or wrongs can indeed be admissible for various relevant purposes, it cannot be used simply to label someone as a bad person based on previous acts.