added, citations omitted); see also United States v. Alicea, 205 F.3d 480, 484 (1st Cir.2000) (“In a single, multi-count trial, acquittal on one or more counts does not preclude conviction on other counts based upon the same evidence, as long as that evidence is legally sufficient to support a finding of guilt on the count(s) of conviction.” (emphasis added)); United States v. Church, 955 F.2d 688, 695 (11th Cir.1992). Thus, while the jury found that the Government had not proved the crimes of aggravated rape and unlawful sexual contact beyond a reasonable doubt, it was free to use Harvey’s testimony that Martinez raped her when considering whether he had formed the specific intent to rape at an earlier point in time. See United States v. Sriyuth, 98 F.3d 739, 747 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Bradshaw, 690 F.2d 704, 708
holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial holding evidence of sexual assault relevant to show defendants motive in kidnapping victim holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault holding that evidence that the defendant had stalked threatened and assaulted the victim his exgirlfriend was evidence as to the nature of the defendants relationship with the victim and that it was relevant to establish motive holding that past instances of physical contact between parties in sexual assault case admissible to show relationship intent opportunity and defendants attraction to alleged victim