Opinion ID: 1658311
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admissibility of Certain Testimony

Text: Finally, Sessions argues that the trial court erred in admitting testimony by other farmers who were allegedly defrauded by Sessions. Generally, previous similar acts are admissible to show fraud, scheme, motive, or intent. Winn-Dixie Montgomery, Inc. v. Henderson, 395 So.2d 475 (Ala. 1981); Roan v. Smith, 272 Ala. 538, 133 So.2d 224 (1961). The trial court has wide latitude in regard to testimony in fraud cases because often the perpetrator is the sole possessor of the actual knowledge of the fraud. Winn-Dixie, supra; Snodgrass v. Branch Bank at Decatur, 25 Ala. 161 (1854). The trial court's rulings will not be disturbed on appeal unless that discretion has been abused. Hinds v. State, 423 So.2d 1382 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Dorcal, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., 398 So.2d 665 (Ala. 1981). We do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing this testimony. The record reflects that the court ensured that the testimony was confined to the issue of fraud. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed on all issues. AFFIRMED. TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.