argued about her request that he pay child support. A.A.. testified that their conversation angered him and that Frye stated, “I’m going to show you” before she hung up on. him. , A.A. testified that, shortly after the argument, Frye appeared at her home and began to act violently with her and eventually forced himself on. her. The State seems to bolster the position that Frye’s actions were in retaliation to A.A.’s request.when.it states in its brief that Frye “was angered because A.A. had filed for child support.” (State’s brief, p. 19.) Thus, the record suggests that the likely and more logical motive behind Frye’s sexual assault on A.A. was her request for child support and not Frye’s previous physical assault on A.A. See Moore v. State, 878 So.2d 328, 334, 335 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). A.A.’s testimony with respect to Frye’s
holding on a criminal appeal that prior bad acts evidence is admissible to prove intent to commit the charged crime holding that evidence of prior convictions is proof of motive for witness tampering holding that juvenile adjudications are prior convictions for purposes of the apprendi exception and indicating that the main concern in apprendi was whether the prior convictions procedural safeguards ensured a reliable result not that there had to be a right to a jury trial holding that moores prior convictions were not admissible to show motive because there was no showing that the acts underlying the prior convictions had a logical tendency to lead to an inference that moore because he committed these prior acts  was motivated to commit the nowcharged crime holding that when a defendant admits prior convictions at a habitual offender hearing he waives any complaints about the validity of the prior convictions