(quotation omitted). To obtain a conviction under the witness tampering statute, the State had to show that the defendant believed Bryar was a potential witness. Kilgus, 125 N.H. at 742, 484 A.2d at 1211. Indictments underlying the case charged the defendant with conspiracy to purchase drugs, with obscenity for showing an explicit film to a minor, and with prostitution for transporting Bryar to engage in sex for consideration. Testimony that Bryar had stated he received drugs and money in exchange for sex made the defendant’s actual belief of Bryar’s status as a witness more probable. Such testimony also rendered more likely the State’s version of why the defendant promised Bryar cash, a car, and a Canadian address. Cf. State v. Whitney, 125 N.H. 636, 638-39, 484 A.2d 1158, 1160 (1984) (<HOLDING>). On these facts, the trial court could find
holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent holding that evidence of prior convictions is proof of motive for witness tampering holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial holding extrinsic evidence of defendants motive to possess gun inadmissible where defendant did not contest the issue of motive holding that when a defendant admits prior convictions at a habitual offender hearing he waives any complaints about the validity of the prior convictions