Which of the following criteria must be met for prior bad acts to be admissible?

For prior bad acts to be admissible in court, one of the essential criteria is that they must prove motive or intent. This is grounded in the principle that such evidence, when relevant, can provide insight into a person’s state of mind or establish the context of their actions. For instance, if a defendant is on trial for a crime, past behavior may be introduced to demonstrate a consistent pattern that is relevant to proving their motive for committing the current offense or to establish intent behind their actions.

This criterion aligns with the rules of evidence, particularly Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and similar provisions in state laws, which allow for the introduction of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for purposes like establishing motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.

In contrast, options related to previous convictions, formal documentation, or involving multiple defendants do not inherently align with the legal criteria for admissibility of prior bad acts. A previous conviction might not always be required, as not all relevant prior bad acts involve convictions, and formal reports are not a necessity for the admissibility of this type of evidence. Additionally, the involvement of multiple defendants does not directly connect to the criteria