and has deleted the last sentence that addresses meeting the requirements of rules 402 and 403. However, under the amended version, evidence must still conform with rules 402 and 403 to be admissible. See Utah R. Evid. 404(b) advisory committee’s note. 5 . See note 4. 6 . The Utah Supreme Court has recently applied the analysis to determine if prior bad acts evidence is admissible for the proper non-character purposes of identity and knowledge under rule 404(b). See State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67, 52 P.3d 1194. 7 . Because J.B.’s testimony is admissible to show intent, I find it unnecessary to address the State's argument concerning the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence to corroborate the victim’s testimony. See State v. Marks, 120 Idaho 727, 819 P.2d 581, 585 (App.1991) (<HOLDING>). However, in his concurring opinion, Judge
holding that a prior conviction for using a communications device to facilitate the distribution of cocaine was admissible under rule 404b to prove that the defendant had the requisite intent to distribute cocaine holding evidence of intent to arouse or gratify sexual desire is relevant where it is an element of the crime charged holding that voluntary intoxication is a defense to a charge of assault and battery with intent to gratify sexual desires holding where the prosecution had to prove the defendant had the intent to gratify his sexual desires that the intent exception to rule 404b is dispositive holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial