The hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a parallel State rule applies only if admission of the affected statement in evidence serves the interests of justice and the general purposes of the law of evidence.

United States v. Hill, 249 F.3d 707, 713 (8th Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of accused's past crimes where such evidence was relevant to show intent to commit the drug crimes, as an element of the charged offenses ).Evidence of a criminal or wrongful act apart from the act that at issue at trial Is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if intent, knowledge, mistake, or accident is a legally-material factual issue, the opposing party suggests the non-existence of knowledge or urges mistake or accident as a defense, and evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove the knowledge or the absence of mistake or accident by a criminal defendant or other person.

Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding, in plaintiff veterinarian's action against defendant national pet store chain for trademark infringement, that evidence of settlement letter [where....Although settlement negotiations and offers are inadmissible (i) to show the validity or invalidity of a claim when validity is in dispute, (ii) to show the amount of damages when the amount is in dispute, or (iii) to impeach by showing a prior inconsistent statement or specific contradiction, they are admissible when they are offered to support or oppose a claim based on a settlement agreement.

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69 (1991) ("The prosecution must prove all the elements of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.").The prosecution must establish each essential element of a criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.