tended to prove “that these people had the propensity ... of getting into a fight that night.” Because evidence of pxior bad acts for this pxxrpose is subject to exclusion under Rule 11-404(B), the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence. {44} Garcia attempts to show erx*or by contending that the evidence in question was admissible under Rule 11-404(B) as pi'obative of motive, intent, knowledge, absence of mistake, and/or context. By this argument, we understand Garcia to suggest that the prior incident had some bearing on the issue of self-defense, as tending to establish that Victim was the first aggressor. However, evidence of the prior altercation was not admissible to show that Victim was the first aggressor. See Baca, 115 N.M. at 540, 854 P.2d at 367 (<HOLDING>). {45} Finally, even though the district court
holding that specific incidents of a victims conduct are not admissible to show that the victim was the first aggxessor holding that the victims negligence is not a defense to criminal conduct holding that evidence of prior uncharged sexual conduct with the victim is admissible to corroborate the victims testimony holding that a defendant who alleges selfdefense can show through the testimony of another witness that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor a defendants prior knowledge of the victims reputation for violence is irrelevant because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim rather than the defendants state of mind holding that uncharged sexual acts committed upon the same victim are admissible to show the conduct of the defendant toward the victim and to corroborate the evidence of the offense charged in the indictment