The hearsay exception for prior testimony applies in a criminal case only if the if the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony in the prior proceeding by direct, cross, or redirect examination. The exception applies in a civil action or proceeding only if the party against whom the testimony is now offered or a predecessor in interest had an opportunity and similar motive in the prior proceeding to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108, 138 (2d Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission of the detective's testimony identifying defendant's voice because "Rule 901 expressly state[d] that voice....Federal Rule of Evidence 901(b)(5) and comparable State rules allow identification of a person's voice -- they allow identification of a speaker -- by a lay witness who has heard the purported speaker's voice on another occasion.

Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) ("Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.").A criminal defendant's criminal propensity to commit cannot be used to show that defendant committed the crime or crimes for which he or she is on trial.

United States v. Webb, 214 F.3d 962, 964-965 (8th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's admission of advocates' testimony about victim's statements on a prior assault because "the evidence was admissible under Rule....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.