When offered in civil actions, other similar events generally do not constitute character, or propensity, and are therefore not barred by the character rule, which prohibits the use of a person's character or propensity to show that person's conduct.

Cf. United States v. Sherlin, 67 F.3d 1208, pin? (6th Cir. 1995) (accused offered privately-arranged exculpatory polygraph test; held, exclusion was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 403).Polygraph test results are insufficiently reliable to be admissible.

Doe v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1269 (9th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's exclusion of accused's prior sexual misconduct because, even though such evidence was relevant, it was unduly prejudicial to the accused as the events were dissimilar and there was significant time lapse between the incidents ).Federal Rule of Evidence 415 and comparable rules in some states create an exception to the prohibition against "circumstantial" character evidence, the prohibition in Federal Rule against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 415 provide that in a civil action which a claim rests on a party's alleged conduct constituting a criminal sexual assault or child molestation, evidence of that party's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault or child molestation is relevant and admissible.

Makuc v. American Honda Motor Co., 835 F.2d 389, 391-392 (1st Cir. 1987) (holding, in plaintiff injured motorbike rider's action against defendant manufacturer for product liability, that wtinesses' testimony [on what the mechanic....To qualify as a statement of present sense impression for purposes of the hearsay exception by that name, the statement made by the declarant (the maker of the statement) must describe or explain an event or condition.