Court Opinion

ID: 9546289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:26:55.66288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:14.388180
License: Public Domain

PARKS, Judge,
special concurrence:
I agree with the holding in this case. I want to express my concurrence in Judge Brett’s holding on the election issue and other crimes evidence. It is common knowledge that parent figures can and do exert great pressure on children to do or not to do certain things. This control or dominance prevents the revelation of abuse and molestation either by threat or embarrassment.
The continuing presence of the domination by the appellant in this case was the deciding factor in determining if the evidence of the prior act should have been allowed to come in at trial.1 The application of the exception to the evidence of other crimes rule allowed corroboration of the victim’s testimony by showing that there was in fact a pattern of abuse leading to the ultimate act of rape.
Authority figures, especially parents, can exert pressure that has a lingering effect upon a child of tender years. That type of control can last long enough to hide abuse and molestation for long period of time and also perpetuate a series of abuses. This exception to the general rule will allow in evidence of this type of activity to compensate for this unique characteristic of child and parent figure relationships. It is a bold step in view of the increasing number of these cases in the courts today.

. The Roulston case cited by Judge Brett suc-ciently states the law to be applied in these circumstances.