He also threatened each of them that if she revealed to anyone what he was doing, she would be sent away or suffer some other severe sanction. All of the victims were related to defendant either through his own marriage or the marriage of his children, and all lived with or near him during the course of the abuse. We conclude that this evidence presents a classic example of a common plan or scheme. When similar acts have been performed continuously over a period of years, the passage of time serves to prove, rather than disprove, the existence of a plan. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that the prior acts were not too remote to be considered as evidence of defendant's common plan or scheme to sexually abuse female family members, including the victims here.
Defendant presents three additional assignments of error.
First, defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State to cross-examine him concerning prior acts of sexual misconduct because it forced him to defend himself against extrinsic allegations in addition to the pending charges. Second, he contends that the trial court erred by allowing improper cross-examination and impeachment of three defense witnesses. Finally, defendant argues that the prosecutor's improper comments, conduct, and arguments prejudiced defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. The majority and minority opinions in the Court of Appeals agreed that error occurred in each of these instances. The majority held, however, that the errors did not prejudice defendant and were therefore harmless.