Other crimes, wrongs, or acts are not barred by the character rule if they are offered for any other purpose that does not require an inference about character or propensity.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51-52 (2004) ("Various formulations of this core class of "testimonial" statements exist: ... 'statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective....A factor that weighs in favor of the characterization of a hearsay statement as "testimonial" and in favor of the conclusion that the statement is subject to the constraints on admissibility imposed by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is that a reasonable declarant would have thought that his or her statement would significantly increase the probability of criminal charges against the defendant.

Cf. United States v. Trujillo, 376 F.3d 593, 611 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding that the trial court erred in admitting the hearsay statements because "Campos' and Rogensues' prior consistent statements were made after they had....A prior consistent statement is admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the prior consistent statement only if the prior consistent statement is admissible to rebut a charge of recent fabrication or motive to fabricate.

United States v. Huffhines, 967 F.2d 314, 320 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the Texas state court judgment because "[c]opies of judgments certified by the Texas Department of....Federal Rule of Evidence 902(4) provides that a document is sufficiently authenticated to be admissible if the document appears to be a certified copy of a public record, provided the document appears to be certified as correct by the custodian or by another person who is authorized to make the certification.