Anger or a similar emotional state is not (or is not viewed as) character, propensity, or disposition, and the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct therefore does not bar the use of a person's anger or similar emotional condition to show the person's conduct.

United States v. Serrata, 425 F.3d 886, 905 (10th Cir. 2005) (law enforcement officers charged with assaulting inmate; defense offered a juvenile court conviction of the alleged victim for resisting arrest when he was 16 years old; the alleged victim was an adult when he was later allegedly criminally...A criminal conviction or an adjudication of juvenile delinquency has been held, said, or assumed to be irrelevant in some situations.

World Wide Association of Specialty Programs v. Pure, Inc., 450 F.3d 1132, 1137-1138 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding, in association's action against parents for posting negative remarks on various internet sites, that defendant's evidence of news or media accounts was admissible when plaintiff's character is...If a defamatory statement impugns a person's character and if truth is a defense, character may be admissible to show that the otherwise defamatory statements is true.

Fed. R. Evid. 401 advisory committee's note ("The standard of probability under the rule is 'more * * * probable than it would be without the evidence.' Any more stringent requirement is unworkable and unrealistic. As McCormick Section 152, p. 317, says, 'A brick is not a wall,' or, as Falknor, Extrinsic Policies Affecting Admissibility,...Evidence is relevant if it increases or decreases to any degree the probability of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.