Does the character evidence rule in general or Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) in particular prohibit a criminal defendant from using a non-defendant's other act, wrong, or crime "circumstantially" -- from using a non-defendant's act, wrong, or crime on another occasion to show that the non-defendant's propensity to act in a certain way in order to show, in turn, that the non-defendant engaged in coduct on a specific occasion in conformity with the non-defendant's propensity?

Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, pin? (1995) (in this case Court specifically rejected argument that a prior inconsistent statement is admissible to rehabilitate credibility of a witness e3ven if the prior consistent statement does not rebut a charge of motive to lie or a...If a witness has been impeached by evidence that expressly impliedly charges that the witness is being untruthful because some circumstances or events occurred that caused the witness to be biased or provided the witness with a motive to lie or fabricate, a prior consistent statement may be used in an attempt to rehabilitate the witness only if the prior consistent statement was made before the circumstances or events arose that, it is expressly or impliedly charged, caused the witness to be biased or gave the witness a motive to lie.

United States v. Newell, 315 F.3d 510, 522-523 (5th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission of the handwritten notes of defendant's in-house accountant as a state of mind exception to the hearsay rule because (1)....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.

United States v. Schreane, 331 F.3d 548, 563-565 (6th Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's admission of defendant nephew's statement as an excited utterance because (1) "the burglary itself may constitute a startling event,....Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for an utterance that relates to a startling event or condition and is made while the declarant -- the maker of the statement -- is excited as a result of the starling event or condition.