appearance when he found her naked and bleeding after Powell raped and attempted to kill her. In addition, the detective who responded to the scene, Kristie’s doctor, and Kristie all testified about Powell’s attack on Kristie. Powell claims the evidence of these crimes was irrelevant to the crime charged in the second trial because these crimes took place after the attempted rape and murder of Stacey. ' Even if this evidence were relevant, Powell contends it should have been excluded as unfairly prejudicial. The Supreme Court of Virginia found no error in the admission of this evidence, concluding instead that the evidence was admissible as “a common criminal scheme” under Virginia evidence laws. Id. at 557; see also Tomlinson v. Commonwealth, 8 Va.App. 218, 380 S.E.2d 26, 30 (Va.1989) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the Supreme Court of Virginia
holding evidence of prior drug use admissible to show motive and the nature of the defendants relationship with coconspirators holding evidence of other crimes inadmissible when identity is not at issue holding that evidence of other crimes though generally inadmissible to show character is admissible to show for instance proof of motive or plan holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake holding other crimes evidence admissible to show motive where motive was put in issue by defense at trial