for Beechum analysis where nothing in record reflected that court applied Beechum test). 4 . The dissenting opinion points out that an extrinsic act may support the inference of a mental state when the act is a consequence of the mental state. Joshua's prior possession— in an amount seemingly greater than that for personal use—and the quantity of cash inferentially rebut Joshua's defensive assertions that he was only a user and thus support his motive for the sale of drugs. 5 . Rule 403 provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Fed.R ir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Government had little need for
recognizing exception 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 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