State v. Gomez, 254 P.3d 47

Gomez, a family member by relationship to V.B., was charged with lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen based on one incident of touching V.B. and offering money to sleep with him.
V.B. testified to prior similar incidents by Gomez and to his behavior around her and her sisters over several years.
The State sought to admit Rule 404(b) evidence through testimony from V.B.'s sisters and a friend to show opportunity, credibility, and context.
Gomez objected to the 404(b) evidence as improper propensity evidence; the district court admitted it with limiting instructions.
Trial included extensive testimony from multiple witnesses about uncharged misconduct; the jury convicted Gomez after a trial that featured disputed credibility and opportunity issues.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the 404(b) evidence was relevant to opportunity and credibility and the court did not abuse its discretion in balancing probative value against prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 404(b) evidence was admissible for purposes other than propensity.	Gomez contends evidence is inadmissible; it’s solely propensity-based.	State argues evidence shows motive/opportunity/identity beyond propensity.	Yes, admissible for opportunity and credibility.
Whether the district court correctly applied the Grist/Johnson framework to determine admissibility.	State relied on Phillips; Johnson/Grist require broader relevance analysis.	Gomez asserts misapplication; court should scrutinize relevance and 403 balancing.	Court conducted de novo relevance review and applied proper balancing; admissible.
Whether the district court abused its discretion under I.R.E. 403 by admitting multiple uncharged acts.	Evidence was highly probative for opportunity/credibility and not unduly prejudicial due to instructions.	Cumulative, prejudicial; risks conviction based on uncharged acts.	No, admissible; probative value outweighed prejudice given instructions.

State v. Phillips, 123 Idaho 178 (Idaho 1993) (context for 404(b) admissibility in Idaho)
State v. Grist, 147 Idaho 49 (Idaho 2009) (reformulated 404(b) framework in child sex cases; probative value vs prejudice)
State v. Johnson, 148 Idaho 664 (Idaho 2010) (requires relevance beyond propensity in common-scheme analysis)
State v. Tolman, 121 Idaho 899 (Idaho 1992) (caution that 404(b) evidence is subject to Rule 403 limits)
State v. Moore, 120 Idaho 743 (Idaho 1991) (previously framed sex-crime 404(b) analysis (overruled by Grist/Johnson))
State v. Pokorney, 149 Idaho 459 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010) (illustrates 403 balancing in 404(b) context post-Grist/Johnson)
State v. Cardell, 132 Idaho 217 (Idaho 1998) (admissibility of similar touching to show absence of accident/intent)
State v. Parmer, 147 Idaho 210 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009) (discusses cumulative witnesses and Rule 403 concerns)