In State v. Scott, 331 N.C. 39, 413 S.E.2d 787 (1992), our Supreme Court held "evidence that defendant committed a prior alleged offense for which he has been tried and acquitted may not be admitted in a subsequent trial for a different offense when its probative value depends, as it did here, upon the proposition that defendant in fact committed the prior crime." Scott, 331 N.C. at 42, 413 S.E.2d at 788. The Court in Scott explained that "a person acquitted of a charge should not be required again to defend himself against that charge in subsequent criminal proceedings in which he may become involved." Id. at 44, 413 S.E.2d at 789. Therefore, the North Carolina Rules of Evidence must be interpreted and applied in light of this proposition: an acquittal and the undefeated presumption of innocence it signifies means that, in law, defendant did not commit the crime charged. When the probative value of evidence of this other conduct depends upon the proposition that defendant committed the prior crime, his earlier acquittal of that crime so erodes the probative value of the evidence that its potential for prejudice, which is great, must perforce outweigh its probative value under Rule 403. Id. at 44, 413 S.E.2d at 790. In Scott, our Supreme Court concluded that the trial court's error was prejudicial and entitled the defendant to a new trial. See id. at 46, 413 S.E.2d at 791. "The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error not been committed, a different result would have been reached at trial." Id. The Scott Court stated that "given the similarity of the circumstances" between the prior accusations and the offense for which the defendant was being tried, "we conclude there is at least a reasonable possibility that had the error in admitting the 404(b) testimony not been committed and this evidence excluded a different result would have been obtained at trial." Id.