Similar fact evidence and Character evidence

In the law of evidence, similar fact evidence (or the similar fact principle) establishes the conditions under which factual evidence of past misconduct of accused can be admitted at trial for the purpose of inferring that the accused committed the misconduct at issue. Evidence of prior bad acts by the accused will be admissible if the prosecution satisfies the judge on a balance of probabilities that, in the context of the particular case, the probative value of the evidence in relation to a specific issue outweighs its potential prejudice and thereby justifies its reception. Questions arise as to how the Court will measure the elements of this rule: i) What constitutes a prior act of misconduct? - Any past misdeed, does not have to proven as a conviction. ii) Why does the Court speak of evidence in relation to a ‘specific issue’? - Good measure of probity, what other issue beyond disposition or propensity evidence. iii) How is probative value determined? - Nature of similarity between details, distinctive features and circumstances of past act and current offence - Proximity in time between past act and current offense - Number of occurrences of the similar acts - Any intervening event - Any other factor tending to support or rebut the unity of past act and conduct in question (i.e. appearance of collusion) Whereas  Character evidence is a term used in the law of evidence to describe any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person. In the United States, Federal Rule of Evidence 404 maps out its permissible and prohibited uses in trials. Three factors typically determine the admissibility of character evidence: the purpose the character evidence is being used for the form in which the character evidence is offered the type of proceeding (civil or criminal) in which the character evidence is offered ‎ Similar fact evidence can be used even if the original "misconduct" could not be prosecuted due to duress or the offender's youth. See the Supreme Court case of Din v. African Newspapers of Nig. Ltd.(1990) 3 NWLR (Pt.139) 392 ‎