building to another where the trial was being conducted. Moreover, Chloe’s entrance along with a member of the prosecutor’s unit is unremarkable. We disagree with the assertion that nefarious intent on the part of this particular prosecutor is a viable argument; that argument is factually unsound, and we reject it in its entirety. IV. Turning to the next issue, we address the trial court’s admission of defendant’s conviction for resisting arrest. In New Jersey, a witness generally may be impeached with evidence of a prior conviction. See N.J.B.E. 609 (“For the purpose of affecting the credibility of any witness, the witnesses] conviction of a crime shall be admitted unless excluded by the judge as remote or for other causes.”); State v. Sands, 76 N.J. 127,147, 386 A.2d 378 (1978) (<HOLDING>). The underlying rationale to that evidential
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 holding that trial court has discretion to determine whether probative value of photo outweighs prejudicial effect holding that witness testimony about prior drug purchases from defendant was highly probative of brookins guilt and was not outweighed by any danger of undue prejudice holding that prior conviction shall be admissible evidence for impeachment purposes unless danger of undue prejudice substantially outweighs probative value holding that inextricably intertwined evidence is intrinsic evidence that is admissible if its probative value outweighs the danger of prejudice