Evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is admissible if there is sufficient evidence to support a finding by a reasonable juror that the other crime, wrong, or act occurred. Clear and convincing evidence is unnecessary; "sufficient" means only that there must be enough evidence to make the other crime, wrong, or act relevant.

Cf. Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, pin? (1995) (while addressing requirements for use of prior inconsistent statement to rehabilitate witness, Court discusses and recognizes the requirements of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) for nonhearsay treatment of prior consistent...A prior statement of a witness is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence if the prior statement is consistent with the witness' testimony at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered, the prior statement is offered to rebut a express or implied charge of recent fabrication or motive, and the witness who made the prior statement testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered.

United States v. Blackwell, 694 F.2d 1325, 1330-1331 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the photographs showing the defendant holding a gun because even though the photographs were not fully....Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(4) and comparable State rules allow a thing or matter to be authenticated by its distinctive characteristics considered in conjunction with circumstances.

Rosenberg v. United States, 120 F. 935, 937 (10th Cir. 1941).Inferences on inferences are impermissible