Dixon owns a second-hand store. He is charged with possession of stolen property after officers find two dozen brand new televisions in the back of his store. At trial, Dixon admits to possession of the televisions, but claims that he did not know they were stolen. The prosecutor admits evidence that Dixon previously offered to sell a brand-new stereo to an undercover officer, claiming that he knows where he can get hundreds of them. Dixon's attorney objects to the admission of the evidence. What is the likely result?

1. The evidence is inadmissible, unless the court makes a preliminary finding that Dixon knew that the stereos were stolen.
2. The evidence is admissible to show that Dixon knew the televisions were stolen, but not to prove any aspect of his character.
3. The evidence is inadmissible hearsay.
4. The evidence is admissible for all purposes.