absence of mistake, or lack of accident.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); United States v. Sanders, 343 F.3d 511, 518 (5th Cir.2003). Evidence of “motive” is thus relevant in that it helps establish that Joshua had a reason to commit the charged offense. See e.g., United States v. Benton, 637 F.2d 1052, 1056-57 (5th Cir.1981) (upholding admissibility of prior murders where relevant to show defendant’s motive for charged murder). “Motive has been defined as ‘the reason that nudges the will and prods the mind to indulge the criminal intent.’ ” Id. at 1056 (citing Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911 n. 15); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1039 (8th ed. 2004) (“Motive” is “[something ... that leads one to act.”). The extrinsic act evidence need not be similar to the charged offense when the ex r.2003) (<HOLDING>). Joshua’s concurrent statement that he dealt
holding that in a prosecution for lurking evidence of a prior act of lewdness by defendant was admissible to establish motive holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial holding defendant made motive issue in drug conspiracy prosecution by advancing theory he was conducting investigation of drug dealing holding evidence of defendants prior drug use and heroin addiction admissible to establish defendants motive to commit robbery holding evidence of drug dealing at house where defendant was arrested admissible in feloninpossessionoffirearm prosecution to establish defendant had motive to carry weapon