Court Opinion

ID: 9624599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:10:56.258518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:50.874052
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice McWilliams
concurring in the result:
I concur in the result reached by the majority for the reason that in my opinion the trial court erred in admitting into evidence testimony tending to show that the defendant committed an act of indecent liberties other than the act for which he was then on trial with one other than the complaining witness some seven years prior to the date alleged in the information. From the standpoint of time alone, such evidence is so unrelated to the offense for which the defendant was then on trial as to render it inadmissible.
I do not however subscribe to the broad, all-inclusive interpretation given by the majority to Dockerty v. People, 74 Colo. 113, 219 P.220. The majority seem to construe the Dockerty case as precluding evidence of a similar offense in a sex case if such offense is committed *280on or with one other than the prosecuting witness regardless of the similarity of the circumstances. Such in my view is not the holding in Dockerty} though I concede that there is language to that effect. Of more importance, in my opinion such is not the law.
As I see it, evidence of a similar offense in a sex case is admissible, even though the act be with one other than the prosecuting witness, under certain circumstances. Certainly such would be admissible if it arises out of the same common transaction which forms the basis for the criminal prosecution. And such evidence is also admissible if the acts have a reasonably close relation in scheme and pattern and in time to the crime charged. In support of my position on this matter see Wharton’s Criminal Evidence §242 (12th ed. R. Anderson 1955) and 77 A.L.R. 2d. 841.