is something other than defendant’s wretched character. Therefore, the question becomes whether the potential for the jury to convict on an impermissible inference that defendant acted in conformity with a flaw in her general character substantially outweighs its probative value in this regard. D. A LIMITING INSTRUCTION If the trial court ultimately determines that the probative value of the proffered evidence substantially outweighs its potential for prejudice, defendant is entitled to a carefully crafted limiting instruction advising the jurors that they are to consider the other acts evidence only as indicative of the reasons for which the evidence is proffered to cushion any prejudicial effect flowing from the evidence. See People v Knapp, 244 Mich App 361, 379; 624 NW2d 227 (2001) (<HOLDING>). A carefully constructed limiting instruction
holding that the trial court plainly erred in failing to provide a specific unanimity instruction to the jury holding that district courts incomplete 404b limiting instruction did not warrant reversal because district court told defense counsel what limiting instruction it would give and defense counsel did not object or request a more specific instruction holding that a trial judge is obliged to give a correct jury instruction notwithstanding that request for instruction was technically erroneous if the evidence generates the subject matter of the jury instruction recognizing that upon request the trial court may provide a limiting instruction to the jury holding defendant who failed to request limiting instruction concerning use of extraneous offenses at the moment the evidence was admitted was not entitled to limiting instructions in jury charge