claimed that he accidentally pulled the victim’s hair, and that he struck her in self-defense after she began hitting him. The State introduced evidence of the 1992 attack in which the defendant beat the victim until she lost consciousness and raped her to show the controlling nature of defendant’s relationship with the victim, which included beating her until she lost consciousness, and his intent. We conclude that the collateral evidence was relevant to prove the defendant’s intent, the absence of mistake, and the controlling nature of his relationship with the victim, to dispute his claim that he had accidentally pulled the victim’s hair, and that he did not intend to harm her and had only struck her in self-defense. See Wilchcombe v. State, 842 So.2d 198, 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>); Simmons v. State, 790 So.2d 1177, 1179-80
holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion when considering the reactive nature of the federal claim holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce direct evidence of the controlling nature of defendants relationship with the victim 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 the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence holding that trial court erred by not allowing the plaintiff to introduce evidence of prior dealings with the defendant