to provide motive of robber when identity is hotly contested “too attenuated and possesses] too many gaps” (quotation omitted)). The resulting inference imparted to the jury is: because the defendant is a drug addict he has the general intent to steal, and because drug addicts steal, it is safe to conclude that this particular drug addict is the unknown culprit in this case. Such reasoning allows the impermissible inference of propensity that the rules of evidence are designed to prevent. Our decision in Kim, as well as cases from other states, reveals that when courts have allowed a prior bad act to be introduced to prove motive, the prosecution actually presented sufficient alternate evidence to establish the defendant’s identity as the perpetrator. Kim, 153 N.H. at 325, 328 (<HOLDING>); see State v. Carapezza, 191 P.3d 256, 261,
holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence that other persons had a motive to kill the victims because inter alia such evidence was speculative holding there was enough evidence to find the defendant abandoned his child when he claimed to have knowledge of cpss involvement he admitted that for periods of two years and six months he did not attempt any contact with his child and from the date he canceled a home study until the petition was filed he did not attempt to contact the child or cps or provide support even when he was out of jail holding crack cocaine addiction admissible to prove motive to kill and rob when accomplice identified defendant and defendants cell mates testified she had admitted her actions holding evidence of defendants extramarital affairs and discharge from the marine corps admissible to show motive in the murder of defendants wife holding evidence of defendants gambling losses and extramarital affair admissible to show motive to kill when he admitted to police that he drugged and robbed murder victims but claimed he did not kill them