as well as to the testimony of Joyce and Sam Celia which the trial judge accepted for purposes of the Cofield test. Thus, the major issue sub judice relates to the fourth part of Cofield, which mandates that the probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice. The balancing of these factors is a delicate task for a trial judge. Williams, supra, 190 N.J. at 131-33, 919 A.2d 90; State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347, 365-66, 840 A.2d 242(2004); State v. Hernandez, 170 N.J. 106, 127, 784 A.2d 1225 (2001). However, as with all 404(b) evidence, greater leeway is given when the evidence is proffered on the issue of motive, and there must be a “very strong” showing of prejudice to exclude evidence of a defendant’s motive. Covell, supra, 157 N.J. at 570, 725 A.2d 675 (<HOLDING>). See also Nance, supra, 148 N.J. at 389, 689
holding trial court improperly instructed jury in trial for possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute that evidence of defendants similar acts of possession was admissible to show motive where motive was not element of crime charged and defendant did not contest motive holding that in a prosecution for lurking evidence of a prior act of lewdness by defendant was admissible to establish motive holding evidence of defendants prior drug use and heroin addiction admissible to establish defendants motive to commit robbery holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial holding evidence of drug dealing at house where defendant was arrested admissible in feloninpossessionoffirearm prosecution to establish defendant had motive to carry weapon