The trial court should admit demonstrative evidence if the evidence is relevant and not unduly prejudicial and if it meets the requirements of other admissibility rules and principles.

United States v. Hebeka, 25 F.3d 287, 291 (6th Cir. 1994) (reversing and vacating conviction for food stamp fraud because, even though accused's prior food stamp fraud conviction established accused's motive for setting up the sham sale of his business, the trial court erred in entering separate...Another act, wrong, or crime is admissible to show a motive for some alleged conduct on a particular occasion.

United States v. Cooper, 482 F.3d 658, 663 (4th Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of accused's DEQ dealings because it (1) was relevant to describing the conditions at the sewage lagoon and accused's awareness of such conditions; and (2) explained "how [accused] came...Other crimes, wrongs, or acts are admissible and do not violate the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct if such acts are admissible to show the context of an event at issue at trial or to tell the full story or an intelligible story of a series of events at issue at trial.

Leonard v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 499 F.3d 419, 442 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that the district court erroneously admitted statements made by insurer's agent to policyholders as "habit" evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 because "evidence was lacking to suggest that [insurer agent's] statements...The routine practice of an organization is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 or a comparable State rule in order to show the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion, but a volitional routine practice cannot be used to show the conduct of a specific person on a particular occasion.