which specifically directed the jury only to consider “evidence of other crimes, acts or wrongs” insofar as it “bears on the defendants’ motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident and for no other purpose.” R., Vol. I, at 103 (Jury Instructions, filed July 23, 2009). And, as the government has pointed out, we have upheld district court decisions involving arguably more prejudicial revelations in the past. See, e.g., United States v. Ford, 613 F.3d 1263, 1268 (10th Cir.2010) (finding no unfair prejudice where the district court admitted into evidence testimony regarding the fact that the charged crimes were committed after the defendant had escaped from prison); United States v. Kimball, 73 F.3d 269, 272 (10th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we
holding that the probative value of evidence that defendant had recently been released from prison offered to show identity opportunity and motive outweighed its prejudicial effect in bank robbery prosecution holding probative value of evidence must be balanced against any prejudicial effect holding that trial court has discretion to determine whether probative value of photo outweighs prejudicial effect holding evidence of extraneous acts  that father walked around nude with erection in front of children  was relevant to issue of intent in fathers prosecution for indecency with a child although probative value of such evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect holding that explicit finding that probative value of similar transactions outweighed their prejudicial impact is not required