With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". evidence is introduced to show motive. Beechum, 582 F.2d at 911 n. 15. Motive is not an ultimate issue in this case, such as an element of the criminal offense, but it is part of the story and provides context to the events in question. By showing motive—that this defendant had a reason to commit the crime—the Government’s more important purpose was to offer circumstantial evidence to support Joshua’s identity. See Benton, 637 F.2d at 1057. The prior possession is, of course, not admissible to show Joshua’s propensity to deal drugs. Yet, extrinsic evidence of prior drug use or possession is relevant to establishing motive where the actions help establish why the defendant wanted to commit the charged offense. See, e.g., United States v. Bitterman, 320 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Weems, 322 F.3d 18, 25 (1st

A: holding that other bad acts evidence was admissible to explain the governments theory of the case as well as for showing the defendants motive for participating in an armed robbery
B: holding evidence of defendants prior drug use and heroin addiction admissible to establish defendants motive to commit robbery
C: holding that in a prosecution for lurking evidence of a prior act of lewdness by defendant was admissible to establish motive
D: holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators
B.