(HRE) Rule 404(b) (Supp.1994) (“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.”). The timing of the introduction of the fact not in evidence is also relevant. We have previously noted that “ ‘the prosecutor’s argument is likely to have significant persuasive force with the jury.’ ” Basham, 132 Hawai'i at 115, 319 P.3d at 1123 (quoting State v. Klinge, 92 Hawai'i 577, 592, 994 P.2d 509, 524 (2000)). Here, introduction of CWs death during the prosecutor’s rebuttal distinguished it as one of the last facts heard by the jury prior to deliberations, further exacerbating the risk of prejudice. That CWs death was introduced during the State’s rebuttal precluded Nofoa from c 692, 718 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the circuit court’s direction to
holding potential for unfair prejudice related to evidentiary issue dispelled by the circuit courts limiting instruction to the jury holding in a criminal context that the probative value of evidence of other crimes is not substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice where the court will give a limiting jury charge recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury recognizing that a limiting instruction has the potential to cure any prejudice from the erroneous admission of evidence holding that the probative value of contested evidence far outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice where any potential unfair prejudice was cured by a limiting jury instruction