her “a bitch and a slut.” He also testified that the next morning, the victim was upset because there were “a lot of hickeys on her neck.” Defendant claimed the marks on the victim’s neck that appeared in the photos introduced by the State were hickeys and not cuts. This testimony indicates that Defendant was arguing that he caused the marks on the victim’s neck either by mistake or with the victim’s consent. In view of Defendant’s testimony, we agree that the testimony of Chavez and Jaramillo was not improper propensity evidence, and we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the testimony was relevant to show, among other things, absence of mistake regarding the victim’s injuries. See State v. Jones, 120 N.M. 185, 187, 899 P.2d 1139, 1141 (Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION {76} We hold that the victim’s
holding that it is error for a trial court to admit evidence of prior bad acts without properly conditioning the jurys use of that evidence holding admission of prior bad acts of child abuse was reversible error when the defendant did not have exclusive control over the children during the period when the prior bad acts occurred holding as to the admissibility of prior bad acts that allegedly took place fourteen and twelve years before the acts alleged in that case that the lapse of time between the defendants sexual acts    goes to the weight of the evidence not to its admissibility holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime holding prior bad acts evidence is admissible where there is an articulation or identification of the consequential fact to which the proffered evidence of other acts is directed