Court Opinion

ID: 9665224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:42:57.58215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:14.032149
License: Public Domain

HEFFERNAN, CHIEF JUSTICE
(dissenting). Because the prior-acts evidence admitted at trial prejudiced the defendant’s right to a fair trial, I dissent. Before pointing out that the majority supports its conclusion only by its refusal to honor elementary principles of proof applicable in a criminal case, it is important to take a common sense look at the real proposition asserted by the majority.
That proposition is that a criminal charge not supported by evidence sufficient to convict can nevertheless be made to “stick” if there is, lurking in the background, another incident which is equally deficient in probativeness or reliability.
The argument is that two zeros add up to something positive. They do not — not in mathematics, not in the criminal law, and not in any system that honors justice and is founded upon the theory that no person shall be convicted unless found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
The majority relies upon two remote, uncorroborated, uncharged, and unproved incidents, one of which allegedly occurred five years before trial and the other seven. These unproved incidents allegedly involved a sexual touching years prior to the trial here. Those claims of assault were never reported to the police, were not corroborated, and were never tested as to their truth in a court of law. Yet, the majority relies upon those incidents for proof beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt of the charged crime. As is clearly evident from the majority opinion, the evidence gleaned in respect to the particular incident charged was not sufficient to prove guilt. *37This is implicit in the majority’s assertion that the dissenters, by their interpretation of the prior acts rule, are responsible for allowing child molesters to go unpunished. Hence, the majority acknowledges that, without the admission of evidence of prior uncorroborated events, guilt could not be proved in the offense charged.
Common sense impels the conclusion that these remote uncorroborated events ought not be used to prove a criminal charge brought years later. Because the rules of evidence are rules of common sense formalized to a degree that they can be used in the determination of facts in a legal proceeding and because the rules of evidence compel an analysis and result which is the antithesis of the majority opinion, I dissent.1
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the prior acts testimony of M.A. and J.H., regarding acts which allegedly occurred five and seven years before the charged offense, was admissible. Because the prior acts testimony was more prejudicial than probative, the testimony was improperly admitted. Admission of this tes*38timony was not harmless error, and therefore a new trial should be granted. See, State v. Dyess, 124 Wis. 2d 525, 540-48, 370 N.W.2d 222 (1985).
The majority holds that the trial court’s decision to admit the evidence was in keeping with the “greater latitude of proof’ as to other like occurrences that is permitted in Wisconsin in sex crimes cases, particularly those involving incest or minors. The “greater latitude” concept can be traced through State v. Fishnick, 127 Wis. 2d 247, 256, 378 N.W.2d 272 (1985), Sanford v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 72, 80, 250 N.W.2d 348 (1977), State v. Tarrell, 74 Wis. 2d 647, 658, 247 N.W.2d 696 (1976), Hendrickson v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 275, 277, 212 N.W.2d 481 (1973), and to Proper v. State, 85 Wis. 615, 630, 55 N.W. 1035 (1893). The concept, as first articulated in Proper, was very limited in scope. In none of the subsequent cases, however, does the court ever articulate or explain any rationale for setting sex crimes, either generally or involving minors or blood relatives in particular, apart from all other crimes. No reasons are ever given why evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence should be allowed in a sex crimes case. No reasons are given because there are no reasons that withstand scrutiny. In every case, the "greater latitude" concept is merely stated as a conclusion fitting the predilection of the court.
The majority also makes the mistake of holding that other crimes testimony was admissible in Fried-rich’s trial to prove motive, scheme, or plan. The motive, scheme, or plan asserted by the state — to obtain sexual gratification from young females with whom Friedrich had a quasi-familial relationship — is not a motive, scheme, or plan at all. This scheme or plan is simply an assertion that Friedrich had a propensity to *39commit sexual assaults. The majority allows the state to relabel a “propensity” as a “scheme or plan” and to thus introduce the forbidden propensity or bad character issue. In doing so, the majority fails to recognize that the terms, “scheme” and “plan,” are terms of art with specific definitions.
Evidence of other crimes may be admissible “to prove the existence of a larger plan, scheme, or conspiracy of which the crime on trial is a part. McCormick, Evidence, sec. 190, p. 559 (3d ed. 1984) (emphasis supplied). The terms, “scheme” and “plan,” refer to a defendant’s formula for achieving a particular purpose. Where there is a scheme or plan, the various acts committed are not committed for their sake alone, but are directed toward achievement of some ultimate or independent purpose. Clearly, the prior acts in this case do not fit that concept. Neither under the rationale of “greater latitude,” nor under the proper application of the exceptions to sec. 904.04(2), Stats., is the testimony of M.A. or J.H. admissible. A combination of those rationales is inappropriate and does not allow the admission of the testimony.
Having in general summarized the position of the majority and the position of this dissent let us first consider the genesis of the “greater latitude” exception to the rules of evidence.
Proper v. State, supra, indeed used the language, “[a] greater latitude of proof as to other like occurrences is allowed in cases of sexual crimes.” P. 360. Unfortunately, with the passage of years, the majority of this court has forgotten the context in which that language was used. The sentence in Proper that precedes the one just quoted recites that, “after making proof of one act of adultery by a witness whose evidence was attempted *40to be impeached, it was held that other instances of improper familiarity between the defendant and the same woman not long before the act of adultery proved, might be given in evidence to corroborate him.” (Emphasis supplied.) P. 630. The sentence that immediately follows the “greater latitude” language relied upon by the majority demonstrates the strict limitations on the permissible extent of the “latitude.” That subsequent sentence provides:
“Upon a prosecution for adultery, evidence of previous acts of improper familiarity, amounting to adultery, between the same persons, was held competent either in corroboration of witnesses for the prosecution ...” (Emphasis supplied.) P. 630.
Thus, the proposition recited by the majority was intended as a very narrow exception to the common law rules of evidence to permit corroboration of other direct evidence under specific circumstances. In a sense, recent improper sexual relations of the same nature between the same parties may be substantially a part of the same criminal conduct. Such evidence is really admissible, not as evidence of other acts or other crimes, but as being clearly related to, or as a part of, the very crime which is charged. Any doubt that this is the correct analysis of the Proper rule, should be removed by McAllister v. State, 112 Wis. 496, 88 N.W. 212 (1901). In that case, the facts of Proper were re-analyzed. It was pointed out that Proper permitted admission of evidence of prior criminal intercourse with the very prosecutrix who had brought the charges in Proper. In addition, the evidence in Proper showed that “the accused had previously got into bed with the prosecutrix and another girl named Emma, and had sexual intercourse with the other girl” *41(p. 499), at the same time making an indecent assault upon the Proper prosecutrix.
Justice Winslow in McAllister points out that anyone who believed that the reference to the assault on the other girl constituted an imprimatur of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to allow the admission of a previous sexual assault on anyone other than the prosecutrix in the case before the court was to be disabused of that mistaken idea. In explaining the limitations upon the “latitude” rule of Proper, Justice Winslow stated:
“[I]t [the language of Proper] expresses the rule which has been generally approved by the authorities, namely, that in prosecutions for crimes of this nature evidence of previous attempts by the accused to commit the crime upon the same person is admissible on the question of intent, but that evidence of attempts to commit the crime upon other persons is not admissible. Mr. Wharton says: ‘Evidence of prior sexual assaults on the prosecutrix is admissible on an indictment for rape, though not of rapes on other persons.’ ” P. 499.2
The “greater latitude” language of Proper is based upon an evidentiary scenario which is unrelated to the other crimes strictures of sec. 904.04 of the Rules of Evidence. It is clear, or should be, that, under the Wisconsin common law of evidence stated in Proper, the introduction into evidence of other sexual crimes that do not involve the person whose case is before the court *42is not to be given “greater latitude” but can only be permitted in evidence if the exceptions set forth in sec. 904.04 are clearly met.
The Proper rule remained free of corrupting judicial predilections through Grabowski v. State, 126 Wis. 447, 105 N.W. 805 (1905), where evidence of an assault upon a “little girl” a “short time prior to the time in question” (p. 454) was received in a sexual assault case upon the same victim. In Lanphere v. State, 114 Wis. 193, 89 N.W. 128 (1902), and Gundlach v. State, 184 Wis. 65, 198 N.W. 742 (1924), the Wisconsin court again faithfully and correctly applied the Proper rule and allowed the admission of prior sexual misconduct by the accused with the same person who was the victim in the case being prosecuted. State v. Mitchell, 253 Wis. 626, 34 N.W.2d 661 (1948), also confined the admission of evidence of a prior sexual assault to an incident with the same person.
In Hendrickson v. State, 61 Wis. 2d 275, 212 N.W. 2d 481 (1973), this court again re-emphasizéd the “greater latitude” rule but narrowly and carefully related it to “unlawful misconduct by defendant in relation to prosecutrix at other times.” P. 277. Nevertheless, the unanimous court in Hendrickson, ignoring the narrow application of the greater latitude rule in Wisconsin case law that it had just reiterated, went astray when it stated, apparently as a general proposition:
“A ‘greater latitude of proof as to other like occurrences’ is clearly evident in Wisconsin cases dealing with sex crimes, particularly those involving incest and indecent liberties with a minor child.” P. 279.
The Hendrickson court, however, immediately took away what it had just ceded to the “greater latitude” *43rule, for it qualified the expanded rule to the point of extinction:
“This is not so much a matter of relaxing the general rule that it is not competent in a prosecution for one crime to introduce evidence of other offenses as it is a matter of placing testimony concerning other acts or incidents within one of the well established exceptions to such rule, as noted in Whitty, and codified in the new Wisconsin Rules of Evidence.” (Footnotes omitted.) P. 279.
Thus, Hendrickson stands not for a new, sweeping “greater latitude” rule in sex-crime cases, but rather for a re-affirmation of the narrow “same victim-same assailant” exception of Proper. In fact, Hendrickson actually negatives the broad sweep the majority employs in the instant case by making clear that prior sexual acts with a third person are only admissible under the exceptions of sec. 904.04, Stats. Thus, the question here is not whether the rules of evidence should be flouted, as the majority asserts, because this prosecution is for a sex crime, but whether the proffered evidence is admissible under Rule 904.04(2). No “greater latitude” is permitted in determining whether an exception to the ban on evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is applicable. Hendrickson, by its own language, ruled out as inappropriate for its facts the application of the “same victim-same assailant” greater latitude rule of Proper.3
*44Hendrickson thus went on to an analysis of the exceptions of sec. 904.04 as it could not rely on the “greater latitude” rationale.
State v. Tarrell, 74 Wis. 2d 647, 247 N.W.2d 696 (1976), however, completely disregarded the genesis of the “greater latitude” rule and mistakenly asserted its applicability to all sex-crimes cases. The misunderstanding or misconception of the “greater latitude” rule in Tarrell was unmasked when it recited that prior sexual conduct completely unrelated to the incident charged and not involving the victim in Tarrell was admissible because the evidence “demonstrated a propensity” (p. 658) to engage in immoral conduct with “young girls.” Clearly, the court in Tarrell was utilizing the prior acts evidence in violation of the sec. 904.04(1) stricture against using prior acts to prove character and to show that the defendant acted “in conformity therewith.”4
The only crutch that supports the result in Tarrell is the erroneous sub silentio assertion that, by the use of the “greater latitude” rationale, the rules of evidence may be contorted to the point that they are ignored.
Sanford v. State, 76 Wis. 2d 72, 250 N.W.2d 348 (1977), repeated Tarrell’s corruption of the “greater latitude” rule. However, Sanford did not rest on that proposition. Rather, it found that the prior acts of misconduct were so distinctive as to constitute modus operandi evidence that was specifically admissible (i.e., to identify that the defendant, not some other person, had commit*45ted the crime) as “identity” evidence under the exceptions of sec. 904.04 and Whitty v. State, 34 Wis. 2d 278, 149 N.W.2d 557 (1967). While Sanford may be correctly faulted for its result and for dicta giving too broad a sweep to the “greater latitude” language, its methodology correctly utilized the exceptions of sec. 904.04(2) and paid lip service to appropriate evidentiary principles.
Fishnick, supra at p. 257, reaffirmed the court’s “commitment to the principle that a greater latitude of proof is to be allowed in the admission of other-acts evidence in sex crime cases, particularly in those involving incest and indecent liberties with a minor child.” The opinion then inexplicably, but nevertheless correctly, states, “Certainly, however, the other-acts evidence must still be placed in one of the sec. 904.04(2) exceptions.”5
The majority in the instant case does indeed attempt to fit the evidence that was erroneously admitted into the exceptions of sec. 904.04, Stats. When it becomes apparent to the majority that the evidence was a misfit under the sec. 904.04 exceptions, the majority, using a corrupted Proper rule, attempts to rationalize the incongruity by asserting that the rules of evidence are not strictly applicable in sex-crimes cases anyhow, because “greater latitude” is permitted. This leap of logic is unwarranted. Under the “greater latitude” rationale of Proper, evidence of an incident, not remote in time, and with the same person may be admitted. The uncorrupted “greater latitude” rule of Proper, in light of our Wisconsin legal history, has nothing to do with any incident involving the defendant and any person not the *46victim in the case at bar. In assessing the admissibility of assaults on such other persons, only the rules of evidence, sec. 904.04, pertain. No latitude whatsoever is permitted in their application.
I fail to understand the purpose or the necessity of reaffirming the “greater latitude” theory if admissibility depends upon the applicability of the exceptions permitted by sec. 904.04(2). If the evidence qualifies for one of the sec. 904.04(2) objections, no “greater latitude” is necessary to admit it. The majority in Fishnick and the majority in this case must mean that it is acceptable to fudge the facts {i.e., give greater latitude) in sex-crimes cases in order to fit them into one of the exceptions to the “other crimes” rule, but that in all other criminal cases, the presumption of innocence and the rules of evidence are to be given effect. It should be noted that in the instant case, as well as in Fishnick, the state does not rely upon the “greater latitude” proposition. It is to be hoped that the state has come to realize that it has gone to the well too often with this canard.6
*47McCormick, Evidence, is cited by the majority for the proposition that the prior acts introduced here are probative of a “plan.” I conclude that that assertion can only be based upon a misunderstanding of the McCormick text. It is clear from reading the footnotes to McCormick (see footnote page 559), that a mere prior act, even if a crime, that somewhat fits — or even exactly fits — the category of the crime charged, is not for that reason automatically considered probative of a “plan.” McCormick cites as examples of an event admissible under the “plan” exception a previous robbery where it could be shown that the perpetrator obtained the name and address of the victim in the case charged during the course of the first robbery. McCormick, p. 558, n. 11, also cites United States v. Dothard, 666 F.2d 498, 502 (11th Cir., 1982), for the proposition:
“ ‘Courts have admitted extrinsic act evidence to show a defendant’s design or plan to commit the specific crime charged, but never to show a design or plan to commit “crimes of the sort with which he is charged.” ’ ”
It is clear from a reading of McCormick that something more than propensity — which can, of course, be shown by repeated crimes of the same kind but which showing is specifically forbidden by the “other crimes” rule — is necessary to evidence a plan. There must also be a link between the crime charged and the other acts sought to be introduced into evidence. McCormick stresses that the fact that a defendant has committed the identical offense or the same type of offense in the past does not qualify the incident for the “plan” exception to the other crimes prohibition. He cites State v. Manrique, 271 Or. 201, 531 P.2d 239, 242-43 (1975), for the proposition that “previous heroin sales [are] not *48part of [a] common scheme or plan.” P. 559. The majority unfortunately misreads McCormick to conclude that repetitious misconduct constitutes a plan. At most, it is probative of propensity, which may not be introduced in evidence. Rule 904.04(1). Other crimes evidence is admissible only to prove an issue in controversy other than propensity.
“It is well settled that:
“ ‘... Evidence of other crimes is admissible when it tends to prove a common scheme, plan or design embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to prove the others or to establish the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial, — in other words where there is such a logical connection between the crimes that proof of one will naturally tend to show that the accused is the person who committed the other.’ Commonwealth v. Wable, 382 Pa. 80, 82, 114 A.2d 334, 336-37 (1955) (Emphasis added.)” Commonwealth v. Shively, 424 A.2d 1257, 1259 (Pa. 1981).
Wigmore stresses that there is a distinction between evidence of a scheme or plan to negative innocent intent (i.e., where defendant admits doing the act charged but defense that an intent or scienter element is missing) and use of the evidence to establish that the defendant actually committed the crime charged. In the latter case, something more is required than the mere doing of other similar acts. 2 Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 304, p. 249 (1979). There must be “such a concurrence of common features that the various acts are naturally to be explained as caused by a general plan of which they are the individual manifestations.” Id. Wigmore explains further:
*49“Thus, where the act of passing counterfeit money is conceded, and the intent alone is in issue, the fact of two previous utterings in the same month might well tend to negative innocent intent; but where the very act of uttering is disputed — as, where the defendant claims that his identity has been mistaken — , and the object is to show that he had a general system or plan of working off a quantity of counterfeit money and did carry it out in this instance, the fact of two previous utterings may be in itself of trifling and inadequate significance. So, on a charge of assault and intent to rape, where the intent alone is disputed, a prior assault on the previous day upon the same woman, or even upon another member of her family, might have probative value; but if the assault itself is disputed, and the defendant attempts, for example, to show an alibi, the same facts might be of little or no value, and it might be necessary to go further and to show (for example) that the defendant on the same day, with a confederate guarding the house, assaulted other women in the same family who escaped, leaving the complainant as the only woman accessible to him for his purpose.” Id.
In the present case the purpose of the other crimes evidence was solely to establish that the defendant committed the crime charged. As in the Wigmore hypothetical, the sexual assault was disputed. There was no plea that there was a “touching,” but it was by inadvertence or with innocent intent. Neither intent nor motive are issues in this case. Under no reasonable view of the rules of evidence can prior crimes information be admitted *50where the only proof is that in a completely unrelated incident the defendant was allegedly culpable.7
An excellent explanation of the circumstances under which prior crimes may be admissible is provided by 2 Weinstein & Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence, sec. 404[16], p. 404-118. They write that courts have used the terms, “scheme” or “plan,” in three situations:
1. The other crimes are part of the “[sjame or common or connected or inseparable plan or scheme or transaction, or res gestae.”8 Evidence of other acts is admitted “[t]o complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context of happenings near in time and place.” Sec. 404[16], p. 404-118.
2. “Continuing place, scheme or conspiracy” Evidence of other acts is admitted “ ‘to prove the existence of a definite project directed toward completion of the crime in question.’ ” Sec. 404[16], p. 404-124.
3. “Unique plan or scheme or pattern.” Evidence is admitted as showing a plan where “[t]he device used ... [is] so unusual and distinctive as to be like a signature,” sec. 404[16], p. 404-128; mere similarity is insufficient. “A defendant cannot be identified as the perpetrator of the charged act simply because he has at other times committed the same commonplace variety of criminal act....” Sec. 404[16], p. 404-129. The plan or scheme must be “sufficiently idiosyncratic.” Sec. 404[16], p. 404-130.
It is obvious that the state’s “plan” does not meet any of the criteria for schemes and plans outlined by *51these authors. The alleged prior acts are neither “necessary to complete the story” of the charged offense by virtue of nearness in time and place, evidence of a “definite project” or ongoing plan, nor sufficiently idiosyncratic to evidence Friedrich’s “signature.” The evidence of the defendant’s alleged prior misconduct would fit almost every sexual assault upon minors that has been before this court. Far from being idiosyncratic, the past conduct here and the charged conduct are unfortunately commonplace. We need only look at the facts of Proper, supra, to see that there is nothing new under the judicial sun. Certainly, testimony of these past episodes, even if believed, is not probative except to show that the defendant was a bad man, and therefore must have committed the charged assault. Thus, the “plan” asserted by the state is not a plan at all; it is simply an assertion, couched in different terms in order to meet the exception to the rules, that Friedrich had a propensity to commit the offense charged.
The assertion that sexual gratification provides a “motive” that in some relevant way connects the charged crime to the past events is somewhat naive. In all cases lacking evidence that the defendant’s purpose was to physically injure or personally humiliate the victim, or that the touching was accidental, the purpose ipso facto under the sexual assault statute is sexual gratification. This is, however, an irrelevant fact in the instant case. Sexual gratification is only an element of the crime where the defense is that of accident — that an “offensive” contact occurred, but was inadvertent. Here, that fact has no relevancy, as the defense is that no contact took place.
The fact that sexual assaults within familial settings are not unusual demonstrates the danger of *52prejudging a defendant who is charged with sexual abuse of a child.9 There is little that is different or distinctive about these assaults. There is no identifiable or distinctive pug mark of the beast. Because most sexual assaults are very similar, the odds are that the admission of prior acts will be prejudicial, and will greatly enhance the likelihood of convicting a defendant, not because he is guilty of the crime charged, but because of proof of a prior crime. This result is not merely regrettable, it is violative of the defendant’s right to a due process trial.
“A defendant cannot be identified as the perpetrator of the charged act simply because he has at other times committed the same commonplace variety of criminal act except by reference to the forbidden inference of propensity.” 2 Weinstein & Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence, sec. 404[16], p. 404-129.
As the Pennsylvania Superior Court stated when repudiating its “greater latitude” rule in sex crimes:
“ ‘One of our most fundamental and prized principles in the administration of criminal law is that a distinct crime, except under certain special circumstances, cannot be given in evidence against a defendant who is being tried for another crime.’ ” Commonwealth of Pa. v. Boulden, 116 A.2d 867, 876, 179 Pa. Super. 328 (1955).
This language was expressly adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Shively, 424 A.2d 1257 (Pa. 1981), wherein the court stated:
“[W]e explicitly overrule [the greater latitude exception in respect to sex crimes]... and hold that sexual and nonsexual crimes must be treated alike in *53deciding whether evidence of prior criminal activity should be admitted.” Pp. 1259-1260.
Finally, the motive exception is not available to the state in this case. McCormick states that “[t]he evidence of motive may be probative of the identity of the criminal or of malice or specific intent.” McCormick, Evidence, sec. 190, p. 562 (3d ed. 1984) (emphasis supplied). In the present case, neither identity nor specific intent is an issue. Intent would only be an issue if Fried-rich had admitted touching the victim but claimed it was an accident. Thus, prior acts could negative a defense of innocent intent. See Wigmore, supra, p. 15. Identity is not an issue because the victim specifically accused Friedrich; it is not claimed that, if Friedrich had not assaulted her, someone else did. If identity were an issue, motive could be introduced to show that one person, as opposed to another, committed the offense. Thus, evidence of motive has no role in Friedrich’s trial; it is both unhelpful and inadmissible. “Motive” should not be confused with “motivation.” See State v. Tarrell, 74 Wis. 2d 647, 663 (1976) (dissenting opinion).
The attempted application of exceptions to the prohibition on introduction of evidence of the defendant’s bad character in this case is inappropriate. In effect, the state seeks to have the jury convict Friedrich for this offense in part because he allegedly committed other offenses with which he has not been charged. The technique used by the state strips the defendant of his due process right to have notice of the charges against him and of the presumption that he is innocent until proved guilty.
The evidence admitted was highly prejudicial.
Interestingly enough, both the state and the majority have failed to assert that, under the original and *54correct formulation of the “greater latitude” theory of Proper, the prior alleged assault upon M.A., were it not remote, would be admissible because it involved the same assailant and the same victim.10 However, as pointed out above, evidence of such a prior event is to be admissible primarily as showing continuing misconduct that approximates a res gestae concept, i.e., it is a part of the same crime. As Proper and its immediate progeny illustrate, such prior events not only must involve the same assailant and victim, but also must be near in time to the event charged and, of course, must be reliably and unmistakably proved to have occurred.11 Here, the alleged assault upon M.A. occurred almost five years before trial and its occurrence is supported by no more credible an assertion than that which supports proof of the charged crime — the uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim.
The prior acts testimony admitted at Friedrich’s trial illustrates the low probative value and highly prejudicial nature of most “other acts” evidence. As pointed out, the prior acts do not fit the exceptions of sec. 904.04, Stats. Moreover, the testimony of M.A. and J.H. was admitted despite two additional and serious defects: remoteness in time and unreliability. Even those cases which accept the corrupted “greater latitude” concept have allowed other acts testimony in sex crimes cases only where the act testified to was proved to have occurred recently or if after some lapse of time was indisputably proved to have occurred. See, for example, cases cited on p. 22 and 23 of this opinion. I know of no *55case in which this court has allowed testimony of prior acts on the basis of the exceptions of sec. 904.04 that were both remote in time and essentially unreported or uncorroborated.
This court has, however, allowed admission of evidence of other acts that were remote in time when the evidence was undisputably and of record reliable. See, State v. Tarrell, 74 Wis. 2d 647, 247 N.W.2d 696 (1976), where a six-year-old conviction was admitted as evidence of a scheme. If the prior act results in a conviction or a charge, or perhaps even an arrest, a degree of reliability attaches to the testimony thereof.12 Where, as here, the prior acts not only did not result in an arrest, charge, or conviction, but were never reported to authorities and were uncorroborated, no reliability factor exists to outweigh the problem of remoteness in time.13
*56Testimony of prior acts that did not result in arrest, charge, or conviction has been admitted in sex crimes cases only where the prior acts were not remote in time. See, Day v. State, 92 Wis. 2d 392, 284 N.W.2d 666 (1979), where evidence of prior acts that had occurred within a year of the charged offense was admitted; see also, Whitty v. State, 34 Wis. 2d 278, 149 N.W.2d 557 (1967), where evidence of a prior act occurring one or two days before the charged offense was admitted. In the present case, however, the prior acts took place five and seven years before the charged offense. Because the prior acts testimony is supported by neither the factor of temporal propinquity nor reliability, it should not have been admitted, even within an exception to the production of evidence of prior crimes. The testimony was highly prejudicial and of a very low degree of proba-tiveness.
In summary, the “greater latitude” rule as applied by the majority is without jurisprudential or moral justification. It is a device that permits judges to circumvent the law by making it highly probable that defendants will be found guilty, not on the basis of the facts proved in the prosecution of the crime charged, but because they have allegedly been involved in sexual misconduct in the past. The rule is unworthy of a jurisdiction which seeks to do justice. It should be repudiated in toto. The only permissible avenue for the introduction of prior crimes evidence is that outlined in the exceptions to sec. 904.04, Stats. When that rule is understood and applied correctly, the likelihood of convicting a defendant for previous acts not charged in the instant proceedings will be materially lessened.
For the reasons set forth above and on the basis of the rationale stated in State v. Sonnenberg, 117 Wis. 2d *57159, 344 N.W.2d 95 (1984), and in the dissenting opinion to State v. Tarrell, 74 Wis. 2d 647, 661-67, 247 N.W.2d 696 (1976), I dissent.
I am authorized to state that JUSTICES SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON and WILLIAM A. BAB-LITCH join in this dissent.

 Moreover, the tenor of the majority opinion is that, without the use of evidence of other acts such as those introduced here, it would be impossible or substantially moré difficult in general to apprehend child molesters. This assumes that the police routinely bring charges on the basis of insufficient evidence in respect to the offense charged. The writer of this dissent, who was a prosecutor at the city, state, and federal levels, believes this to be untrue. Certainly, no evidence supports the majority’s implied slur on the professional qualities of our law enforcement officers. In addition, there is not even an unsupported assertion that the proper use of the ‘prior acts’ rule of evidence permits guilty molesters to escape. The essence of the majority opinion is that parties charged are obviously guilty— hence, how can it be error to admit even unproved, unreliable, uncorroborated testimony of other occurrences that might indicate the defendant is a bad person.

 McAllister asserts that the motive or intent impelling a sexual assault is not always the same, that in addition to sexual gratification (rape, so referred to in that case) the motive or intent could be, e.g., “revenge.” “[I]t can hardly be logically argued that because a man has assaulted two women, although the assaults were both on the same day, the same motive impelled both assaults.” P. 499.

 This writer would limit the Proper rule to a sex crime both involving the same victim and assailant and so close in time as to be a portion of a continuum of misconduct. Additionally, the ambience of the case should be such that it shows a relationship to the crime charged, i.e., Proper, even in its original form, does not conform to reasonable rules of evidence. Mere identity of parties should not be *44sufficient absent the offering for purposes sanctioned by sec. 904.04(2).

 The “propensity” language was withdrawn by this court’s opinion in State v. Fishnick, 127 Wis. 2d 247, 255, 378 N.W.2d 272 (1985).

 In Fishnick, the state specifically disavowed reliance on the “greater latitude” rule. Fishnick, p. 257.

 The language of the state’s brief is:
“The evidence regarding the earlier incidents with M.A. and J.H. was relevant to show a general plan as that term is understood in sex crimes cases involving a child victim.... This case is thus one of those warranting the greatest latitude of proof under the Hen-drickson rule.”
Thus, the state recognizes that even the meaning of the word “plan” has been skewed by this court in cases of this kind. Apparently, the state is alternatively asserting that even the exceptions to the other crimes rule are to be construed in such a way as to permit “plan” or “motive” evidence that would be outlawed in all other criminal cases to be admitted in sex-crimes cases.
The careless language used by this court has understandably encouraged this bizarre approach to the rules of evidence.

 It should be remembered that the evidence of the prior assaults has no greater basis for credibility than the evidence in the case charged. In each case the evidence is without corroboration.

 This exception approximates the Proper rule in its pristine form.

 The alleged victim was fourteen years old.

 The evidence of the previous alleged assault upon J.H. would not — even if not remote — be admitted under Proper.

 See footnote 2 re applicability of Proper under rules of evidence.

 While in retrospect it seems clear that the result in Tarrell was in error, the reliability of the prior event was unquestionable, i.e., it was reduced to judgment.

 “[E]ven if evidence of prior criminal activity is admissible under [citing cases], said evidence will be rendered inadmissible if it is too remote. [Citing cases] Remoteness, in our view, is but another factor to be considered in determining if the prior crime tends to show that the same person committed both crimes. The degree of similarity between the two incidents necessary to prove common identity of the perpetrator is thus inversely proportional to the time span between the two crimes. Even if the time span instantly is only seven months, we fail to perceive enough similarity between the two episodes to allow admission of the prior activity.” Commonwealth v. Shively, 424 A.2d 1257, 1259 (Pa. 1981).
While the writer of this dissent would not assert the strict mathematical correlation asserted, it is clear that staleness diminishes probativeness.