Opinion ID: 1537933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Similarities in Offenses

Text: As this court pointed out in affirming the convictions, the similarities between the crimes against Ms. L. and the crimes against Mrs. N. makes them mutually admissible, and thus neither set of offenses stands alone. Rather each is supported by the corroborating evidence resulting from the similarities between them. First, the descriptions given by Mrs. N. and Mrs. L. correspond in numerous ways. Both agree that the intruder was a black male and describe him as in the same age range-Mrs. N. as around 26 years old; Mrs. L. as from 24-25 years old. Both say that he was wearing a red baseball cap, blue jeans, and a blue jacket. At trial, Mrs. N. estimated his height as 5'8, while Mrs. L. estimated it as 5'8 to 5'10. Officer Nungasser reported that the night on the scene, Mrs. L. told him that her assailant was six feet tall and under 30 years old, a description which accurately describes Mr. Jones. Each victim adds additional details that the other does not, and while there is some discrepancy in the height, that is only to be expected. But the similarities in the actions of the intruder are what takes this to a level of overwhelming evidence where there can be every confidence that the convictions were reliable. Those similarities are as follows: 1. The houses were within 300 yards of each other in somewhat secluded settings in out-of-the-way areas. 2. The burglar entered both homes carrying a knife. 3. The burglar made identical use of the knife, that is, the knife was held to the victim's neck, thus requiring the victim to face forward and minimizing the victim's opportunity to view her assailant. 4. The victims were dragged around and up and down stairs by the necks of the garments they were wearing while the intruder searched the house for valuables worth stealing. 5. Both victims described the burglar as mean or rough. He threatened to kill Mrs. N. if she spoke or screamed, and ordered her six-year old son to carry the baby. Mrs. L. described him as rough at the beginning and then he got worse. 6. The burglar checked every room in each house and ransacked them for valuables. 7. The burglar appeared experienced and confident in his actions, not unsure of himself. 8. The burglar warned both victims that they would be killed if they took certain action-Mrs. N. if she spoke or screamed or if she called the police after his departure; Mrs. L. if the number for her bank card was not accurate (and noted, as he strangled her, that he could kill her if he wanted). 9. The burglar cut the telephone lines in each house before leaving. 10. Before the rape, the burglar tied the wrists of both victims tightly behind their backs using each victim's panty hose. 11. Before the rape, the burglar used the tops worn by each victim ÔÇö a T-shirt in the case of Mrs. N. and a blouse in the case of Mrs. L. ÔÇö to blindfold them. 12. The burglar added gratuitous violence to each rape, strangling Mrs. L. until she lost consciousness and biting the nipple of Mrs. N. so hard that it left the indentations of his teeth. There is no suggestion that Mrs. N. and Mrs. L. knew each other or coordinated their identifications of Mr. Jones as their assailant. Rather, what exists are solid identifications by both victims backed up by the fingerprint evidence, the calls to Mrs. N. on the same day as the police stop, and a dozen ways in which the intruder's actions during each set of offenses were parallel to the other.