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.

United States v. Reed, 227 F.3d 763, 737 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's ruling to admit Simmons's prior testimony because he was unavailable, as Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(1) considers a declarant as....The hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule apply only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) is unavailable to testify at the trial or proceedings at which the declarant's statement is offered.

United States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954, 960 (8th Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's admission of testimony about two prior incidents of sexual abuse because it was probative as "it tends to prove [accused's] propensity to molest young children in his family when presented with an opportunity to do so...Federal Rule of Evidence 414 and comparable rules in a few States create an exception to the prohibition against "circumstantial" use of character -- the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct -- by providing that in a criminal trial for child molestation or child sexual abuse, evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation or child sexual abuse is relevant and admissible.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d).Statements exempted from the hearsay rule are not made inadmissible by the hearsay rule even when such statements are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and even when such statements thus otherwise satisfy the definition of hearsay provided by Federal Rules of Evidence 801(a) and 801(c) or by similar State rules.