In order to be admissible under the motive exception, evidence of the prior bad acts "must give sufficient ground to believe that the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts or circumstances." Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 314 Pa. Super. 364, 367, 460 A.2d 1182, 1184 (1983), quoting Commonwealthv. Schwartz, 445 Pa. 515, 522, 285 A.2d 154, 158 (1971).

See Commonwealth v. Powell, 956 A.2d 406, 420 (Pa. 2008) (evidence of defendant's prior abuse of victim was relevant to establish his relationship with victim and the reasons why he would have had the requisite intent to murder him); Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 615 A.2d 350, 356 (Pa. Super. 1992) (defendant's prior bad acts toward victim were probative of motive if the charged crime "grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of circumstances") (quoting Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 460 A.2d 1182, 1184 (Pa. Super. 1983)).

In other words, evidence of the prior bad act may be admissible if "the crime currently being considered grew out of or was in any way caused by the prior set of facts or circumstances." Commonwealth v. Schwartz, 419 Pa. Super. 251, 263, 615 A.2d 350, 356 (1992), appeal denied, 535 Pa. 617, 629 A.2d 1379 (1993) (quoting Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 314 Pa. Super. 364, 367, 460 A.2d 1182, 1184 (1983)). Because we have already conceded that the trial court improperly admitted the log book and related documents, we need not address that aspect of appellant's motion in limine.

We are unable, however, to grant review in this case for the reason that several of appellant's contentions are either based on assertions of fact not included in the record or are misstatements of recorded facts. Although appellant has appended documents to his brief purporting to support his claims, these documents are not properly before us as it is well established that facts outside the record may not be considered on appeal. Commonwealth v. Quinlan, 488 Pa. 255, 412 A.2d 494 (1980); Commonwealth v. Young, 456 Pa. 102, 317 A.2d 258 (1974); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 314 Pa. Super. 364, 460 A.2d 1182 (1983); Commonwealth v. Nelson, 311 Pa. Super. 1, 456 A.2d 1383 (1983); Commonwealth v. Griffis, 310 Pa. Super. 547, 456 A.2d 1071 (1983) (facts, even though not in dispute, when not part of record may not be considered on appeal); Commonwealthv. Rini, 285 Pa. Super. 475, 427 A.2d 1385 (1981) (allegations in brief, even when not substantially challenged are not part of record). There is no transcript of sentencing proceedings in the record of the instant case.

The facts elicited were arguably prejudicial to the defense. See: Commonwealth v.Mitchell, 314 Pa. Super. 364, 367, 460 A.2d 1182, 1183-1184 (1983); Commonwealth v. Glasco, 298 Pa. Super. 189, 192-194, 444 A.2d 724, 726 (1982), aff'd, 503 Pa. 124, 468 A.2d 1095 (1983). See also: Commonwealth v. Witherspoon, 481 Pa. 321, 327-328, 392 A.2d 1313, 1316-1317 (1978); Commonwealth v. Gray, 339 Pa. Super. 385, 389-390, 489 A.2d 213, 215-216 (1985).

Id., 259 Pa. Super. at 299, 393 A.2d at 836.Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 314 Pa. Super. 364 at 367, 460 A.2d 1182 at 1184 (1983). Assuming, arguendo, that the balancing test here results in the conclusion that the evidence is inadmissible, as the trial court itself held, one more question must be answered.