Moreover, Melamed’s testimony should have been excluded because its probative value was outweighed by the potential for prejudice. See Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d at 375. The probative value of Melamed’s testimony was reduced because of the strength of the case against defendant. The police were able to locate defendant by tracing the license plate Rosenbloom observed. Rosenbloom identified the defendant and his vehicle. Defendant was further linked to the crime by the unique collection of foreign currency found in his possession. The strength of this evidence eliminated the need for Melamed’s testimony identifying defendant and increased the likelihood that the jury improperly based its verdict on defendant’s propensity to commit crime. Cf. People v. Barbour, 106 Ill. App. 3d 993, 1000 (1982) (<HOLDING>). The State argues that admission of Melamed’s
holding that evidence of other crimes though generally inadmissible to show character is admissible to show for instance proof of motive or plan holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial holding evidence of other crimes inadmissible when identity is not at issue holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes holding defense crossexamination did not raise issue of intent or identity