Relevant case law is explored, with emphasis on the steps taken by Oregon courts to analyze bad acts evidence and its admissibility. State v. Johns provides a way for bad acts evidence to be admitted. First the evidence can be admitted as relevant so long as it shows something other than that the person acted in conformity with his or her bad character. Second, if the evidence is relevant it must be assessed by the court under Oregon Evidence Code 403 and the following five factors considered: the need for the evidence, the certainty that the person committed the act, the strength of the evidence, the inflammatory effect, and the time consumption and distraction. If a trial court follows these steps and makes its reasoning clear in the record, its decision will probably not be reversed. However, the trial court should never forget that fairness dictates that an accused must answer only for the wrongdoing for which he or she has been charged. 178 footnotes.