This is a cross reference. Click here to make the jump.

United States v. Crawford, 214 F.3d 873, 875-876 (8th Cir. 2005) (upholding admission of accused's 1994 conviction for abusive sexual contact of an eight-year old girl because such it was relevant as it involved a similar crime of sexual assault of an eight-year old girl).Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and comparable rules in a few States create an express exception to the prohibition against circumstantial use of character, the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 413 provide that in a criminal trial for sexual assault evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible.

United States v. Sioux, 362 F.3d 1241, 1247 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of accused's similar sexual assault where "plain language of the rule permits admission of subsequent acts evidence to the same extent it permits the introduction of evidence tending to demonstrate...Federal Rule of Evidence 413 and comparable rules in a few States create an express exception to the prohibition against circumstantial use of character, the prohibition against the use of character to show conduct. Rules such as Rule 413 provide that in a criminal trial for sexual assault evidence of the defendant's commission of another offense or offenses of sexual assault is admissible.

United States v. Bruguier, 161 F.3d 1145, 1148-1150 (8th Cir. 1998) (upholding trial court's ruling which allowed the government to cross-examine the accused's opinion character evidence witnesses on their knowledge about specific incidents in order to explore the bases for holding such opinions).Although a character witness who testifies to the reputation of another person or gives an opinion of the character of another person cannot testify to specific instances of that person's conduct to bolster the character witness's testimony, an opposing party may question the character witness about specific instances of the person's conduct to show that the character witness' testimony about the character of the person was not well-founded.