2018 (October Term)
United States v. Hale, 78 M.J. 268 (members are permitted to consider evidence of other acts admitted under MRE 404(b) to prove the requisite intent for an offense).
2013 (September Term)
United States v. Kearns, 73 M.J. 177 (the government is free to prove appellant’s intent by circumstantial evidence).
2011 (September Term)
United States v. Vela, 71 M.J. 283 (intent, like other mental states, can be shown by circumstantial evidence).
United States v. Tanksley, 54 MJ 169 (a pattern of lustful intent, established in one set of specifications, can be used by factfinders as proof of lustful intent in a different set of specifications).(extrinsic evidence of one crime used to support intent to commit a different crime will possess great probative value if the defendantís intent is in issue and may be critical to the establishment of the truth as to a disputed issue, especially when that issue involves the actorís state of mind and the only means of ascertaining that mental state is by drawing inferences from conduct).