In a case involving convictions for uttering a forged instrument and attempting to obtain property by false pretenses in connection with a fraudulent check, the trial court did not err by admitting evidence of a second fraudulent check. The second check was virtually identical to the first one, except that it was drawn on a different bank. The fact that the defendant possessed the second check undermined the defendant’s explanation for how he came into possession of the first check and proved intent to commit the charged crimes. Also, the evidence passed the Rule 403 balancing test.