there was evidence that connected the defendant to such threats. These cases seem to indicate, without so holding, that had the threats been connected to the defendant they would have been appropriately admitted into evidence. Obviously, such threats and other attempts to intimidate witnesses can and do result in criminal charges pursuant to section 16-9-340 of the South Carolina Code (Rev. 2003). See State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 613 S.E.2d 381 (Ct.App.2005) (affirming defendant’s conviction for intimidating victim/witness in connection with his trial for criminal se 91) (“[Spoliation evidence, including evidence that the defendant threatened a witness, is generally admissible because it is probative of consciousness of guilt.”); U.S. v. Mickens, 926 F.2d 1323, 1329 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Pina, 844 F.2d 1, 9 (1st Cir.1988)
holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal holding that an effort to intimidate a witness is relevant to the issue of the defendants state of mind and admissible under rule 404b holding that evidence of threats or intimidation of a witness is admissible under rule 404b to show consciousness of guilt holding that the rule 404b evidence admitted to prove intent was clearly relevant because intent was at issue in the trial holding that evidence of customer inquiries is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule