stating that other acts "evidence is never admissible when its sole purpose is to establish that the defendant committed the act alleged of him in the indictment"
How later courts described this case
- stating that other acts "evidence is never admissible when its sole purpose is to establish that the defendant committed the act alleged of him in the indictment"
- by opening the issue of his character in that manner, the accused permits the state to rebut with character evidence tending to show his propensity to commit the acts and offenses alleged
- error in admitting expert testimony on general pedophile characteristics
- evidence of other bad acts admissible to show mistake by defendant, not by state's witnesses, and only if mistake is at issue
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*669
Brogan, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur for the reason that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting the other acts testimony. I do not find that the trial court erred in admitting Dr. Bergman’s testimony. I do not believe that an ordinary juror would be conversant with the behavioral patterns of pedophiles. The defendant invited the introduction of this testimony and I would defer to the trial court’s determination that the probative value of this testimony did not outweigh its prejudicial impact.