Evidence that helps tell a factual story in an intelligible way or that puts the evidence or the issues in the case in a meaningful or intelligible context is "relevant."

Cf. United States v. Hughes, 535 F.3d 880, 882-883 (8th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's exclusion of the proposed testimony of defendant's friend [about defendant's out-of-court statement] pursuant to the residual....A statement not specifically covered by Federal Rule of Evidence 803 or 804 or by comparable State rules, but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

United States v. Milk, 447 F.3d 593, 600 (8th Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's exclusion of evidence of victim's violent act because such violent act occurred five years earlier).Evidence that would be prohibited character evidence if offered to show a person's conduct is not barred by the character evidence rule if it is offered to show some other matter such as another person's belief.

Fed. R. Evid. 803(4) ("Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.").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.