on 22-23 August 2006 “depends upon [his] having in fact committed the prior alleged offense.” Scott, 331 N.C. at 41, 413 S.E.2d at 788. In addition, “[w]here the accused is not definitely identified as the perpetrator of the crime charged and the circumstances tend to show that the crime charged and another offense were committed by the same person, evidence that the accused committed the other offense is admissible to identify him as the perpetrator of the crime charged.” McClain, 240 N.C. at 175, 81 S.E.2d at 367. Thus, evidence that Defendant unlawfully possessed prescription drugs on both 10 February 2005 and 22-23 August 2006 might tend to identify him as the individual who possessed those drugs on both occasions. State v. Reid, 175 N.C. App. 613, 624, 625 S.E.2d 575, 584 (2006) (<HOLDING>). However, evidence that Defendant possessed
holding that evidence that the defendant and a witness sold drugs together was relevant to prove how the witness knew the defendant 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 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 the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand holding that evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy where the evidence did not show that individuals who sold drugs to the defendant knew that the drugs were meant to be resold