of all forms, including that which has heretofore been described as res gestae. The more confounding use of res gestae arises in its complication and derailing of the analysis of misconduct evidence called for under Rule 404(b), a problem this case so well demonstrates in respect of the treatment of Graves’s and Puglia’s testimony. V. A. As noted, the common law’s res gestae notion of “things done” or “inseparable crimes,” developed into the enlarged doctrine through which was admitted evidence of uncharged misconduct when it was impossible to prove the crime charged without revealing the uncharged misconduct, and also when the uncharged misconduct evidence explained the circumstances surrounding the charged crime. See, e.g., State v. Martini, 131 N.J. 176, 240-42, 619 A.2d 1208 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Riley, supra, 18 N.J.Super. at 73, 86 A.2d
holding that the existing exceptions to rule 404bs general bar against the admission of propensity evidence allow for the introduction of both prior and subsequent bad acts evidence holding that rule 404bs predecessor rule 55 did not apply to uncharged acts that as res gestae are components of offense for which defendant is being tried holding that time limit in rule 35c predecessor to rule 35a  is jurisdictional recognizing rule holding that rule 4j predecessor rule to 4m s exemption for service in foreign countries does not apply where service under rule 4i predecessor to rule 4j  was never attempted