This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Gore (D) had used trademark methods while committing robberies. There were three witnesses to a bank robbery who observed the methods of the robber. D was charged with the crime due to the similarities to his already admitted methods. D objected to the admission of his statements regarding his methods. He claimed that this evidence was prejudicial, not probative.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.