[brief] Ignoring momentarily the clear improbability of the allegations, the State sought to introduce uncorroborated accusations made by an ex-girlfriend that [...] wanted to *murder* the alleged victim in this matter.  [...] does not have any history of violence, and his criminal history is virtually nonexistent, even if it was admissible.  It cannot be ignored that whatever value these allegations may have had with respect to consciousness of guilt would be outweighed by the potential prejudice that jurors consider this evidence in support of a propensity for violence or criminal conduct.  The trial court further ignored that the potential prejudice posed by admitting this evidence, and thus consolidating these trials, extended far beyond the jurors hearing about the allegations of witness tampering.  As thoroughly argued before the trial court, admitting this evidence and allowing these charges to be tried together would shift the focus entirely from the alleged attempted kidnapping to the relationship between [...] and [...].  The jury ultimately did not find [...] Perez credible, and acquitted [...] on the witness tampering charge, but that does not negate the fact the Defense was forced to place the ugly reality of the couple’s relationship on display for the jury in order to discredit her testimony, resulting in substantial prejudice.  Defense counsel argued in his motion to sever that allowing these counts to be tried together would shift the entire focus from the attempted kidnapping to the relationship between [...] and [...], and that is precisely what occurred.  Approximately one third of the testimony offered during trial pertained to the attempted kidnapping, with the remaining testimony airing out the details of the dramatic and tumultuous relationship with [...] and [...], including [...]’s drug addiction.  As previously discussed, excluding the testimony of [...] Perez, the State’s case with respect to the attempted kidnapping charge hinged on the jury crediting the testimony of the alleged victim over that of the Defendant.  The surveillance footage collected aligned with both sides’ accounts, and there were no eyewitnesses to their interaction.  [...] did not have any admissible criminal history, and the State did not have any additional evidence to suggest that the alleged victim’s testimony should be credited over that of the accused.  Stated differently, both the accuser and the accused were placed on a fairly level playing field, and the result would depend on who the jury perceived to be more credible.  The jury would be particularly susceptible to considering any indica of character evidence that might tilt the scales in this situation, even if subconsciously considered.  For example, in addition to the comments which should have resulted in a mistrial, the jury should never have been exposed to the fact that [...] dated multiple women at a time, or that he was affiliated with individuals engaged in drug use, or that he allowed his girlfriend to buy him several expensive gifts.  The jury may not have believed [...] Perez’s testimony with respect to the allegations of witness tampering, but that does not mean that her testimony, as well as the testimony presented by the Defense in order to refute her claims, did not leave the jury with an overarching negative impression of [...].  This would have been an entirely foreseeable result at the time of the motion hearing, and the trial court’s failure to consider this potential impact in light of the weight of the remaining evidence in the attempted kidnapping case constituted clear error.