To be admissible, prior events or accidents must be substantially similar to those at issue in trial.

United States v. Newman, 849 F.2d 156, 164-165 (5th Cir. 1988) (upholding trial court's exclusion of testimony of expert psychiatric witness about the accused's unusual susceptibility to inducement and entrapment because even though such evidence is admissible when an entrapment defense is raised, it was...A subjective entrapment defense makes an accused's criminal liability contingent on a finding of the accused's predisposition or the accused's lack of predisposition to commit the crime charged and since criminal predisposition is a character trait, the defense of subjective entrapment makes accused's character an element of either a defense or a criminal charge, evidence of accused's criminal predisposition -- including evidence in the form of reputation, opinion, and evidence of specific instances of accused's conduct -- is not barred by the rule against the use of a person's character to show the person's conduct.

Cf. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Sinkovich, 232 F.3d 200, 205-206 (4th Cir. 2000) (holding, in plaintiff underwriters' action for declaratory relief against defendant yacht owner, that the trial court erroneously admitted accident....Document must have been prepared in the normal course of business.

Cf. United States v. Naiden, 424 F.3d 718, 722-723 (11th Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's exclusion of defendant's statement [that he did not believe his online acquaintance to be fourteen years old] as a state of mind....To fall within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule for person's present internal states, a statement by the declarant (the maker of the statement) must be contemporaneous with the mental state or event sought to be proven.