Opinion ID: 879952
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Similarity between crime charged and previous acts

Text: The prior acts contained in the State's notice consisted of the following: (a) In spring of 1986 ... when [the 11 year old] was sitting on the defendant's lap during a game of Trivial Pursuit, he put his hand on her thigh, moved his hand to her inner thigh, and began rubbing upward on her inner thigh. (b) During the summer of 1986 ... defendant put his arms around [the 12 year old], and hugged her tight for a long time, while telling her to call him if she ever needed to talk, and held her so tight she could feel his penis against her. Mr. Gilpin, in his brief, concedes that the incidents involving the 11 year old were similar. He contends that the incidents involving the 12 year old had absolutely no similarity. Concerning the 12 year old girl, Mr. Gilpin was charged with standing very close behind her and rubbing her breasts. It is not necessary that the prior acts and the charged offense be identical. State v. Tecca (Mont. 1986), 714 P.2d 136, 138, 43 St.Rep. 264, 267. We conclude that the other acts were sufficiently similar to the charged offense to justify admission of the evidence. State v. Long (Mont. 1986), 726 P.2d 1364, 1367, 43 St.Rep. 1948, 1951.