version of those events, we need not decide whether the district court abused its discretion in admitting testimony pertaining to the March 3rd incident because any error would be harmless. Second, and for the sake of completeness, we note that in addition to the previously identified problem of the Federal Rules of Evidence not applying, many courts have permitted the introduction of similar evidence in the context of domestic violence to show intent, motive, and the general nature of the relationship. See, e.g., State v. Brown, 900 A.2d 1155, 1161 (R.I. 2006) (stating that admission of uncharged instances of assault was permissible to show “an escalating pattern of domestic violence tended to establish defendant’s intent”); State v. Williams, 188 Vt. 405, 9 A.3d 315, 320 (2010) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Faulls, 821 F.3d
holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators holding that past instances of physical contact between parties in sexual assault case admissible to show relationship intent opportunity and defendants attraction to alleged victim holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim holding prior instances of domestic assault admissible to show the nature of the parties relationship and explain what might otherwise appear to be incongruous behavior to a jury such as remaining with an abusive partner and delaying a report of abuse holding that prior uncharged sexual conduct between the defendant and the victim is admissible to show their state of intimacy as well as to explain the circumstances surrounding the offense