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.

Reyes v. Missouri Railroad Co., 589 F.2d 791, 794 (5th Cir. 1979) (ordering new trial in negligence action in which jury had found plaintiff more negligent than defendant, on ground that evidence of plaintiff's prior convictions for public intoxication had been "admitted for the sole purpose of showing...A person's character, or propensity, is inadmissible to show that person's conduct on a specific occasion.

Cf. Meaney v. United States, 112 F.2d 538, 539 (2d Cir. 1940) (ordering new trial because the district court erroneously excluded the insured's "history of the case" as narrated to the physician because it was competent).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.

Cf. United States v. Serrano, 434 F.3d 1003, 1005 (7th Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission of the insurance documents as non-hearsay evidence because "the documents [were] not introduced for the truth....A statement can be hearsay only if the statement is "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." The purpose for which a statement is offered depends on the purpose of the offeror of the statement. Hence, a statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the offeror (normally trial counsel) seeks to use the statement to show that the matter or proposition asserted by the declarant (the maker of the statement) is in fact true.