possession and concurrent statement under Rule 404(b). Because I conclude the district court did abuse its discretion by admitting the extrinsic evidence and the error was not harmless, I would VACATE the conviction and REMAND for a new trial. First, while I agree that Joshua’s concurrent statement is relevant to Joshua’s motive, Joshua’s prior possession is not and thus fails even the first step of the Beechum analysis. For extrinsic evidence to be admissible under the first step of the Beechum analysis, the evidence must be “relevant to an issue other than the defen dant’s character.” United States v. Beechum, 582 F.2d 898, 911 (5th Cir.1978). While the district court held the prior poss f the mental state, see, e.g., United States v. Garcia-Meza, 403 F.3d 364, 368 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Second, the mental state shown must be,
holding admissible bad acts of defendant evidencing jealousy as motive for killing another holding prior assault on wife admissible to show husbands jealousy as motive for her murder holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators holding evidence of defendants extramarital affairs and discharge from the marine corps admissible to show motive in the murder of defendants wife