Indeed, defendant's actions throughout the day were necessary to explain to the jury defendant's motive for the murder. Defendant's earlier random and aggressive conduct helps explain an otherwise random and bizzare act. Further, this evidence was probative of defendant's state of mind just prior to the shooting. Whether defendant's state of mind prior to the killing carried over to the killing itself was a question for the jury to resolve. The prior incidents and the shooting occurred within a few hours, thus making the evidence highly probative and admissible so long as defendant was not unfairly prejudiced by its admission.
Evidence tending to inculpate the defendant always carries with it some prejudice.
Rule 403 excludes only unfairly prejudicial evidence if such prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value. Evidence is unfairly prejudicial if its primary purpose or effect is to provoke horror or punish the defendant, or to appeal to the jury's sympathies. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this evidence of other acts. The evidence was not offered for the purpose of eliciting jury sympathy or horror, nor was it likely to have that effect. The evidence had substantial probative value and was properly admitted.