Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.

Wolfle v. United States, 291 U.S. 7, 14 (1934).There is a privilege for confidential marital communications.

United States v. Saniti, 604 F.2d 603, 604 (9th Cir. 1979) (upholding trial court's admission of witness's testimony about accused's expensive drug habit where it was relevant to show accused's motive for robbing the bank).Another act, wrong, or crime is admissible to show a motive for some alleged conduct on a particular occasion.

United States v. Weinstock, 153 F.3d 272, 276 (6th Cir. 1998) (upholding trial court's admission of the Physician Practice Profile [consisting of statistical data generated from Blue Cross computers] as a business record....The hearsay exception for "business records" created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) or a comparable State rule applies only (i) the record is based on the personal knowledge of an entrant with a business duty to record the event or other such matter or (ii) if the record of the event is based on the personal knowledge of a person who had a business duty to transmit the information about the event or other matter to the person or persons who made the record and had a business duty to do so. A person has a "business duty" if the person has a duty to an organization by reason of law, contract, employment relationship, or other such matter to record or report an event, condition, opinion, or other matter to which the business records exception to the hearsay rule may apply.