Opinion ID: 716671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Closeness in time and similarity

Text: 10 Although Mora apparently concedes that the arson and mail fraud occurred closely together in time, see Appellant's Br. at 18, she asserts that the offenses are not similar. Id. For this evidence to be admissible, however, the prior acts need not be duplicates of the one for which the defendant is now being tried, United States v. Lloyd, 71 F.3d 1256, 1265 (7th Cir.1995) (quotations and emphasis omitted) (evidence that defendant had been target of assassination attempts relevant to his motive to possess firearms), because the admissibility of other crimes evidence depends on the nature and purpose of the evidence. Mejia-Uribe, 75 F.3d at 398. Here, evidence that Mora withheld information about arson from Safeco is sufficiently similar to the charge that she misrepresented her claims to Safeco to help prove her intent to defraud, and satisfies this prong of the test.