In both cases extrinsic evidence of the prior possession or drug use was relevant to establishing why the defendant committed the offense in question. In Bitterman evidence of the defendant’s prior drug use helped establish why the defendant committed the robbery: to support his drug habi he majority does not explain why Joshua’s prior possession helped establish his motive to commit the charged drug offense is that it does not. The relevance of extrinsic evidence of motive turns on two different inferences. First, the extrinsic act must support an inference of a mental state, such as desire for money, jealousy, revenge, etc. 22ACharles Alan Wright & Victor James Gold, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Evid. § 5240 (2d ed.2013); e.g., United States v. Arnold, 773 F.2d 823, 833 (7th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The extrinsic act can prove mental state in
holding evidence of defendants loan sharking activities admissible to show motive for bribery of witness before grand jury investigating loansharking holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators holding that evidence of other crimes though generally inadmissible to show character is admissible to show for instance proof of motive or plan holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial 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