403. Beechum essentially incorporates Rule 403's balancing test as its second prong. See Crawley, 533 F.3d at 355. 6 . The fallacy of this "only identity is at issue” theory is shown by the following hypothetical. Suppose X is charged with murdering Y. Can X avoid the introduction of evidence to show he had a motive to murder Y by conceding that somebody with a motive murdered Y, just not him? 7 . Further, we may affirm the district court’s denial a motion to suppress evidence based on any basis in the record. See United States v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir.2010); United States v. Charles, 469 F.3d 402, 405 (5th Cir.2006). The district court held the evidence as admissible to prove motive, intent, or identity. The dissenting opinion appears to concede that th (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Tai 994 F.2d 1204, 1210 (7th
holding trial court improperly instructed jury in trial for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute that evidence of defendants similar acts of possession was admissible to show motive where motive was not element of crime charged and defendant did not contest motive holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial holding 404b evidence admissible under intent exception but not motive exception where motive not contested holding extrinsic evidence of defendants motive to possess gun inadmissible where defendant did not contest the issue of motive