Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): S.B. 6933. This interpretation of ER 404(b) is consistent with a majority of federal and state courts. 1 Edward J. Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence §§ 29-31 (1998). 73 State v. Ferguson, 100 Wn.2d 131, 133-34, 667 P.2d 68 (1983) (“This court has often invoked an exception in similar cases to permit evidence of collateral sexual misconduct when it shows a lustful disposition directed toward the offended female. ‘Such evidence is admitted for the purpose of showing the lustful inclination of the defendant toward the offended female, which in turn makes it more probable that the defendant committed the offense charged.’ ” (citations omitted) (quoting State v. Thorne, 43 Wn.2d 47, 60-61, 260 P.2d 331 (1953))). 74 State v. DeVincentis, 150 Wn.2d 11, 21, 74 P.3d 119 (2003) (<HOLDING>). 75 See, e.g., State v. Herzog, 73 Wn. App. 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the common scheme or plan exception is generally applied in cases involving sexual crimes where evidence of acts prior and subsequent to the act charged in the indictment is held admissible as tending to show continued illicit intercourse between the same parties (B) holding that a prior conviction may be a bad act for purposes of rule 404b if substantial evidence supports a finding that defendant committed both acts and the probative value is not limited solely to tending to establish the defendants propensity to commit a crime such as the crime charged (C) holding that the high level of similarity between the charged crime and prior bad acts necessary to prove common scheme or plan does not require evidence of common features to show a unique method of committing the crime (D) holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime (E) holding that despite some differences between the charged offense and the collateral crime similarities between the two were striking enough to establish a unique crime pattern
Output (English): recognizing that the common scheme or plan exception is generally applied in cases involving sexual crimes where evidence of acts prior and subsequent to the act charged in the indictment is held admissible as tending to show continued illicit intercourse between the same parties