sufficient evidence that the similar transaction occurred and (b) sufficient connection or similarity between the similar transaction and the crime alleged so proof of the former tends to prove the latter. Furthermore, “[w]hen considering the admissibility of similar transaction evidence, the proper focus is on the similarities, not the differences, between the separate crime and the crime in question.” Here, the trial court found that the evidence that Martin-Argaw attempted to hire someone to murder his wife, her son, and Vander-pool was admissible to show “motive, intent, identity, course of conduct, and bent of mind where the incidents involve attempts to harm or kill the same individuals.” And based on our review of the record, the trial court’s finding was no 544 SE2d 709) (2001) (<HOLDING>); Fugitt v. State, 256 Ga. 292, 293-94 (1) (a)
recognizing the right to compulsory process only requires that the government may not prevent an otherwise willing defense witness from testifying holding that evidence of a threat to a witness by the defendant is relevant as showing an attempt to prevent a witness from testifying and avoid punishment for the crime holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that evidence that the defendant and a witness sold drugs together was relevant to prove how the witness knew the defendant recognizing that informing the jury that testifying witness has agreed to cooperate with the government is a doubleedged sword as the existence of such agreement may suggest either that the witness will testify in accordance with the governments wishes regardless of the truth or that the witness will not he under threat of revocation of the agreement should the witness commit perjury