Although the rule limiting the admissibility of subsequent remedial measures bars the use of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence, culpable conduct, a defect in the product or its design, or a need for warning or instruction, subsequent remedial measures are admissible to show ownership or control.

Cf. United States v. Mitchell, 172 F.3d 1104, 1107-1100 (9th Cir. 1999) (trial for armed bank robbery; "Mitchell (accused) argues that evidence of a defendant's poverty is not admissible to show motive, citing an evidence treatise by Wigmore and several cases from other circuits such as Davis v....Poverty is generally irrelevant to the question of the doing of an act (such as theft) by showing motive (such as desire for money) for the act.

United States v. Goodchild, 25 F.3d 55, 61-62 (1st Cir. 1994) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the telephone statement memos as business records because "[the statement memos met] the strictures of the....The hearsay exception for "business records" created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) or a comparable State rule applies only (i) the record is based on the personal knowledge of an entrant with a business duty to record the event or other such matter or (ii) if the record of the event is based on the personal knowledge of a person who had a business duty to transmit the information about the event or other matter to the person or persons who made the record and had a business duty to do so. A person has a "business duty" if the person has a duty to an organization by reason of law, contract, employment relationship, or other such matter to record or report an event, condition, opinion, or other matter to which the business records exception to the hearsay rule may apply.

United States v. Cerno, 529 F.3d 926, pin? (10th Cir. 2008) (conviction for aggravated sexual abuse in Indian country; defendant, invoking Fed.R.Evid. 403, contended that his conviction must be reversed because the district court improperly allowed the prosecutor to question...Under some circumstances untruthfulness is admissible to impeach a witness.