It is often that the State may seek to admit prior acts of misconduct to be used against a defendant in a criminal proceeding. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he has acted in conformity therewith.
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(2). Such evidence may be admissible for a purpose not related to the character of the defendant, such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.045(2). The Supreme Court of Nevada has held that it is “heavily disfavored” to use prior bad act evidence to convict a defendant because bad acts are often irrelevant and prejudicial and force the accused to defend against vague and unsubstantiated charges. The concern of the Supreme Court of Nevada has been that this evidence will unduly influence the jury to convict the defendant because, based on that evidence, the jury believes a defendant is a bad person