A subsequent remedial measure is not admissible to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in the product or its design, or a need for warning or instruction.

Williams v. Stewart, 441 F.3d 1030, 1040 (9th Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the Larson burglary because it was probative of accused's intent or identity as Bunchek's killer ).Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if such other crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove identity.

United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, pin? (1984) ("It seems clear to us that the proffered testimony with respect to Mills' membership in the Aryan Brotherhood sufficed to show potential bias in favor of respondent; because of the tenets of the organization described, it might...The principle of multiple admissibility: if evidence is inadmissible for one purpose, it may be admissible for another purpose; if evidence is inadmissible to show one fact, the evidence, if relevant to another fact, may be admissible to show the other fact.

United States v. Alexander, 331 F.3d 116, 121-123 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's admission of defendant girlfriend's 911 call as an excited utterance because even though "the intervening call might suggest that [the....A statement falls within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule for excited utterances, only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) was under the stress of the startling event or condition when he or she made the statement that relates to that startling event or condition.