1. Prosecution of D, a trustee, for embezzling funds from the trust. D admits that the trust was depleted, but claims someone else was stealing the funds. To rebut D's defense, the prosecution wishes to present evidence that after the charged act, D embezzled more funds from the same trust. D objects. How should the court rule?
   1. The court should overrule the objection because the evidence is admissible to prove a plan, and thus D's identity as the perpetrator.
   2. The court should overrule the objection because the evidence is admissible to impeach D by contradiction.
   3. The court should sustain the objection because the uncharged act took place after the charged event.
   4. The court should sustain the objection because this is inadmissible character evidence.