Court Opinion

ID: 9573842
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:59:45.999419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:43:25.874184
License: Public Domain

BRYNER, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I am unable to agree with the majority of the court in this case. The majority’s decision peremptorily overrides a sound exercise of trial court discretion and unnecessarily bars the admission of highly relevant evidence of criminal intent in a case where the issue of intent has affirmatively been placed in dispute by the defendant.
The pivotal issue in this case is the admissibility of evidence of other misconduct in a sexual assault case when the defendant affirmatively claims consent.1 Evidence of three sexual assaults was admitted against Velez. The first occurred on October 24, 1985, when Velez raped his girlfriend, C.S. The second occurred approximately three weeks later, on November 14, 1985, when Velez attempted to rape G.J., a woman he met at an Anchorage bar. Nine days later, on November 23,1985, the third assault occurred when Velez forcibly raped S.F., another woman he met at a bar. Velez w;as charged with attempted sexual assault in the first degree for the November 14 attack on G.J. and with sexual assault in the first degree for the November 23 attack on S.F.
The evidence at trial as to the first charged assault indicated that G.J. worked part-time as a dancer at a topless bar in *1309Anchorage. Velez became acquainted with G.J. because he was a regular lunchtime customer at the bar where she danced. Velez visited G.J. and her boyfriend at G.J.’s trailer on several occasions and helped G.J.’s boyfriend work on his truck. On November 14, 1985, G.J. went to Velez’s body shop to pick up a coat. Velez drove G.J. home, stopping on the way to purchase blackberry brandy and beer. When they arrived at G.J.’s trailer, she invited Velez in for a drink.
Velez told G.J. about an incident involving his former girlfriend in which he had hit her and forced himself upon her because “he wanted her and he knew that she wanted him.” He told G.J. that his former girlfriend had accused him of rape and had obtained a restraining order against him.
After drinking the brandy and beer, Velez asked G.J. to dance for him. She refused. Velez got up and put his arms around G.J., saying that he had not been with a woman for a while. G.J. kissed Velez on the cheek and told him to calm down, reminding him that she had a boyfriend. Velez became more aggressive and held G.J. against himself. G.J. again told Velez to calm down or leave. She moved away from Velez and sat down on the couch. Velez approached G.J. again, saying, “come on, ... I want it and you want it too.” G.J. started to get up, but Velez pushed her back down on the couch. He lay on top of G.J. and attempted to separate her legs with his knees, telling her, “come on, you know you want it.” G.J. screamed and told Velez to get out. Velez struck her in the face, and they continued to struggle. Eventually, G.J. managed to get away for long enough to pick up the telephone. She threatened to call the police. Velez left the trailer.
G.J. reported the incident to the police. After an initial investigation, a misdemean- or citation was issued against Velez for assault and battery, and the case was apparently referred to the Anchorage Police Department for further investigation of more serious charges.
On November 19, 1985, Velez met S.P. at another Anchorage bar. Velez and S.F. talked and danced. Velez invited S.F. to bring her car to his body shop to get an estimate on some work S.F. needed to have done. On November 23, 1985, S.F. went to the body shop to have a headlight repaired. Velez was at the shop with several other people. While Velez was installing the headlight, he suggested that S.F. and the shop owner’s girlfriend buy some blackberry brandy and beer. When they returned, everyone drank the brandy and beer and smoked marijuana. During this time, Velez mentioned to S.F. that he had charges pending against him in another state for assault and battery and that he had come to Alaska to get away from them.
After the others left the shop, S.F. asked Velez what she owed him for fixing her headlight. Velez replied, “A hug.” S.F. gave Velez a hug and he pushed her down on the couch. S.F. said, “No,” and began to struggle. Velez grabbed her by the throat and tried to remove her clothing. S.F. tried to knee Velez in the groin; he said menacingly, “Don’t you ever do that again.” After removing S.F.’s pants and underwear, Velez had sexual intercourse with her. He got up and placed a blanket on the floor, dragged S.F. off the couch, and had sexual intercourse with her again. Velez subsequently permitted S.F. to leave. S.F. reported the rape to the police later that evening.
Velez testified in his own behalf at trial. Concerning the November 14 attempted rape, he admitted hugging and kissing G.J. but claimed that she started screaming for no apparent reason, so he let go of her and she fell down. According to Velez, he left G.J.’s apartment soon thereafter when efforts to calm her down proved unavailing. Velez did not deny making the statements to G.J. concerning his assault on a former girlfriend. He testified, however, that he had not been charged with rape as a result of the incident and that his former girlfriend’s efforts to obtain a restraining order had been dismissed because she failed to appear for a hearing. On cross-examination, Velez denied forcing his former girlfriend to have sexual intercourse with him.
*1310Concerning the November 23 sexual assault on S.F., Velez admitted having sexual intercourse but claimed that the episode was entirely consensual.
On rebuttal, the trial court permitted the state to call Velez’s former girlfriend, C.S., as a witness. C.S. testified that she met Velez in September 1985 and went out with him several times. On October 24, 1985, she and Velez spent the evening drinking with several other people at the body shop; Velez was drinking blackberry brandy and beer. Later that evening, Velez invited her to his apartment for a drink. According to C.S., Velez became aggressive and tried to kiss her. She told him that she did not want to have sex with him. They struggled and C.S. began to cry. Velez pulled her down on the floor and forced her to have sexual intercourse. C.S. subsequently attempted to obtain a restraining order, but she did not follow through or file formal charges of assault against Velez because she was afraid of him.
The jury convicted Velez of the attempted sexual assault on G.J. and of the sexual assault on S.F. He thereafter appealed. On appeal, Velez claims that, had separate trials been held on each of the two charges, evidence of his other two acts of sexual misconduct would have been inadmissible.
The proper starting point for analysis of Velez’s claim is Alaska Rule of Evidence 404(b):
(b) Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
The plain language of Rule 404(b) bars the use of evidence of other misconduct only when it is admitted to prove the defendant’s character, and only when the purpose of proving character is to establish the defendant’s conduct in committing the offense charged. The rule does not operate to forbid evidence of other misconduct when it is relevant to show the defendant’s culpable mental state—or mens rea—as opposed to the defendant’s conduct—or ac-tus reus:
Where the proof of other acts is offered to show that the person engaged in the disputed conduct, the weak probative value of the evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is swamped by the countervailing considerations of fairness and efficiency. Therefore, the general rule is, as stated in Rule 404(b), that other acts may not be used to prove the conduct of the actor. But once it has been shown by other evidence that the act was done and the issue is who did the act and with what mental state, the balance shifts. The probative worth of the evidence when offered for some other purpose may be higher, the need to prove the requisite mental state may be greater, and the prejudice to the defendant may be less. Hence, the balance cannot automatically be struck against admissibility.
22 C. Wright & K. Graham, Federal Practice and Procedure § 5239 at 438-39 (1978) (hereinafter Wright & Graham).
When evidence of other misconduct is shown to have relevance to some issue other than the defendant’s propensity for conduct similar to the conduct charged, admission of the evidence “is left to the application of the normal rules of relevance....” Id. See also Huddleston v. United States, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). Primary among the “normal rules of relevance,” of course, is Alaska Rule of Evidence 403,2 which permits the trial court, as a matter of discretion, to exclude relevant evidence when its probative value is outweighed by its potential for prejudicial impact. Wright & Graham, § 5239 at 439. See also Ler-*1311chenstein v. State, 697 P.2d 312, 315-16 (Alaska App.1985), affd, 726 P.2d 546 (Alaska 1986).
The issue of admissibility in the present case thus turns initially on the question whether, in relation to each of the two charges against Velez, the evidence of his other misconduct was relevant to prove something besides his propensity to commit the type of conduct charged. If some other legitimate relevance is established, A.R.E. 404(b) is inapplicable; the issue of admissibility shifts to the balancing formula articulated in A.R.E. 403.
One of the purposes for which evidence of other misconduct is expressly allowed under A.R.E. 404(b) is to show intent. “The theory upon which evidence of other crimes is admissible on [the issue of intent] under Rule 404(b) is that its use on the mental element of the offense does not require an inference as to the character of the accused or as to his conduct.” Wright & Graham, § 5242 at 487-88. This exception to A.R.E. 404(b) is broadly recognized and as broadly applied. See, e.g., Huddle-ston, 108 S.Ct. Í496. Intent is one of the exceptions expressly listed in A.R.E. 404(b) and is thus clearly recognized under Alaska law, even though the rule has been characterized as one of exclusion rather than inclusion. See Oksoktaruk v. State, 611 P.2d 521, 524 (Alaska 1980).
Because the exception for intent might threaten to swallow the rule if too broadly applied, however, two limitations are commonly imposed. First, “[t]he issue of intent must be seriously disputed.” Wright & Graham, § 5242 at 489. See also Freeman v. State, 486 P.2d 967, 977 (Alaska 1971). And, second, the evidence of other misconduct must be similar to the act of misconduct with which the accused is charged. Wright & Graham, § 5242 at 490-92; Adkinson v. State, 611 P.2d 528, 532 (Alaska 1980); Oksoktaruk, 611 P.2d at 524.
In the specific context of sexual assault cases where the defendant claims consent, there is abundant ease law in other jurisdictions allowing the admission of evidence showing similar sexual acts in order to prove the defendant’s intent. See, e.g., Oglen v. State, 440 So.2d 1172, 1176 (Ala. Cr.App.1983); People v. Salazar, 144 Cal. App.3d 799, 193 Cal.Rptr. 1, 7 (1983); People v. Jackson, 110 Cal.App.3d 560, 167 Cal.Rptr. 915, 918-19 (1980); O’Neal v. State, 170 Ga.App. 637, 318 S.E.2d 66, 67 (1984); Baker v. State, 449 N.E.2d 1085, 1088-89 (Ind.1983); State v. Gonzales, 217 Kan. 159, 535 P.2d 988, 989-90 (1975); Williams v. State, 95 Nev. 830, 603 P.2d 694, 697 (1979); State v. Fears, 69 Or.App. 606, 688 P.2d 88, 89-90 (1984); State v. Willis, 370 N.W.2d 193, 198 (S.D.1985); Rodriguez v. State, 646 S.W.2d 539, 542 (Tex.App.1982); State v. York, 50 Wash. App. 446, 749 P.2d 683, 688-90 (1987). See generally, Annotation, Admissibility, in Rape Case, of Evidence that Accused Raped or Attempted to Rape Person Other than Prosecutrix, 2 A.L.R. 4th 330, 345-49 (1980).
In Alaska, the issue is squarely controlled by Davis v. State, 635 P.2d 481 (Alaska App.1981), a case that is virtually indistinguishable from Velez’s case. In Davis, we expressly approved the use of similar crimes evidence to prove the intent of the defendant, who was charged with sexual assault and kidnapping, and who affirmatively asserted the defense of consent:
In the present case, when Davis took the stand and testified that he had engaged in sexual intercourse with M.M., but that the intercourse was consensual, he affirmatively and specifically placed in issue his intent. Given this testimony, the highly probative nature of the evidence concerning recent similar assaults by Davis is manifest, and the trial court’s decision allowing the evidence to be heard by the jury is not an abuse of discretion.
Id. at 485 (citations omitted).
The majority of the court in this case is unable to decide whether to distinguish Davis or overrule it, so they attempt to do a little of both. The attempt to distinguish Davis is wholly unconvincing. While it is true that Davis was charged with kidnapping, a specific intent crime, as well as with *1312sexual assault, the passage from Davis quoted above makes it clear that our holding addressed the relevance of Davis’ prior misconduct on the issue of his intent in committing the sexual assault, not on the issue of his intent in committing the kidnapping. We found the evidence to be “highly probative” on the issue of intent, and we found its relevance for that purpose to be "manifest.” Id.
Moreover, our holding in Davis addressed the admissibility of the challenged evidence on the issue of intent, not, as the majority of the court implies, on the issue of common scheme or plan. Indeed, if common scheme or plan had been at issue in Davis, it would have been wholly unnecessary for this court to rely on the fact that Davis had expressly raised the defense of consent and thereby placed his intent in issue, because the common scheme or plan exception to A.R.E. 404(b) allows the use of other crimes, evidence to prove either conduct or intent. See Wright & Graham, § 5244 at 502 (“evidence of a plan may also be admissible to show the doing of the criminal act”).
Judge Coats’ concurrence suggests that it was necessary to explain Davis’ intent toward his victim. Yet, the need to explain Davis’ intent with respect to his victim was hardly greater than the need to explain Velez’s intent with respect to G.J. and S.F. Other bases for distinguishing Davis suggested by Judge Coats are no more persuasive. To the extent that the actions of Smith, Davis’ accomplice, needed explanation, that explanation could certainly have been provided without specific reference to the prior sexual assaults. As in Davis, the evidence of Velez’s prior misconduct in this case placed his actions “in a context.” Just as was the case in Davis, the issue of guilt here came down to a contest of credibility between the victims and the defense. And there is little reason to suspect that the evidence of prior sexual assault was any less prejudicial in Davis—where it was presented through the testimony of an accomplice who was an eyewitness—than it was in the present case—where it was presented through the testimony of the victims themselves.
The reasons advanced in support of overruling Davis are equally unconvincing. In opposition to Davis and the numerous authorities from other jurisdictions reaching like conclusions on similar facts, Judge Singleton’s opinion cites two decisions: People v. Key, 153 Cal.App.3d 888, 203 Cal.Rptr. 144, 147-50 (1984), and State v. Saltarelli, 98 Wash.2d 358, 655 P.2d 697, 699-701 (1982) (en banc).
These decisions are poorly reasoned. They begin with the premise that rape is a general intent crime, and they point out that a defendant who claims consent admits knowingly engaging in an act of sexual intercourse. From this, the cases prematurely conclude that the defendant, by claiming consent, has admitted both the actus reus and the culpable mental state for the offense. They reason that the only fact remaining in dispute is the victim’s lack of consent—an issue which they assume to be unrelated to the defendant’s mental state. See Key, 203 Cal.Rptr. at 148; Saltarelli, 655 P.2d at 701. See also State v. Houghton, 272 N.W.2d 788, 791-92 (S.D.1978) (overruled by State v. Willis, 370 N.W.2d 193, 197-98 (S.D.1985)).
Atop this analytical foundation, Key, Sal-tarelli, and similar cases build the conclusion that defendants in rape cases who claim consent do not place their intent in issue. This conclusion is as shaky as its logical underpinnings are flawed. These eases are mistaken in two respects: first, in their understanding of the scope of the intent exception to Rule 404(b), and, second, in their understanding of the elements of the crime of rape—more particularly, the requirement that the state prove the victim’s lack of consent.3
*1313The starting point of analysis in Key and Saltarelli is that rape is a general intent crime. The underlying premise seems to be that the intent exception to Rule 404(b) has no application—or is at least of less significance—in cases involving only knowing or reckless conduct; the cases seem to assume that for the intent exception to apply, specific intent must somehow be at issue. This is simply incorrect. Rule 404(b) uses the word “intent” as a convenient form of shorthand to denote any aspect of the accused’s culpable mental state that is included as an element of the prosecution’s ease:
The ‘intent’ exception should be read broadly so as to cover any required mental element of the crime whether malice or knowledge or the absence of mistake, accident, or duress or intoxication.
Wright & Graham, § 5242 at 487.
The second mistake made by Key and Saltarelli lies in their characterizing the state’s duty to prove lack of consent as one that deals only with the conduct of the victim and that has nothing to do with the culpable mental state of the accused. Even Judge Singleton’s opinion in the present case expressly disavows this view and acknowledges that it amounts to a significant oversimplification.
Under Alaska law, the crime of rape— sexual assault in the first degree—is defined to include any act of “sexual penetration with another person without consent of that person.” AS 11.41.410(a)(1). We construed this provision in Reynolds v. State, 664 P.2d 621, 625 (Alaska App.1983). Under the interpretation we adopted in Reynolds, in order to prove the crime, the state must first show an act of sexual penetration by the defendant. This is the prohibited conduct, or actus reus, of the offense. The prosecution must next show that the victim did not consent. Lack of consent, a surrounding circumstance, comprises the second element of the state’s case. As to each of these two elements, the state is required to prove the defendant’s culpable mental state. With respect to the prohibited conduct—the act of sexual penetration—the state must show that the defendant acted knowingly. With respect to the surrounding circumstance—the victim’s lack of consent—the state must prove that the defendant acted recklessly.4
The state’s duty to prove lack of consent thus actually encompasses a two-fold obligation: the first portion of the duty deals with establishing the victim’s state of mind and conduct; the second portion addresses the defendant’s awareness of the victim’s conduct and state of mind, and the defendant’s own subjective response to that awareness. These two aspects of lack of consent are inextricably interwoven, and, contrary to the conclusions reached in Key and Saltarelli, the second aspect plainly involves the defendant’s intent—his culpa*1314ble mental state.5
It is precisely because the notion of consent intertwines the victim’s willingness to consent and the defendant’s awareness of that willingness that a defendant cannot affirmatively invoke the former without also invoking the latter. Both are integral parts of the same fabric, and when a defendant asserts that he committed an act of sexual penetration with the victim’s consent, he also necessarily asserts his own good faith—that he acted with benign intent, neither knowing of nor disregarding the victim’s lack of consent.
It follows that, when a defendant affirmatively claims consent, the issue of culpable mental state becomes actually and seriously disputed: the state will not prevail by convincing the jury merely of the victim’s subjective unwillingness to engage in sexual penetration with the defendant, but it must also convince the jury that the defendant knew of or recklessly disregarded the victim’s wishes. In these circumstances, evidence of other similar misconduct by the defendant should legitimately be available to the state—subject of course to the balancing process of A.R.E. 403—to shed light on the defendant’s intent.
Although actually acknowledging that the notion of lack of consent incorporates the defendant’s intent, and although actually conceding—albeit reluctantly—that evidence of similar misconduct may have relevance on this issue, Judge Singleton’s opinion in this case inexplicably adheres to cases like Key and Saltarelli, which wrongly reach exactly the opposite conclusion. And in the same breath as Judge Singleton’s opinion acknowledges the theoretical relevance of evidence of other misconduct on the issue of intent, it summarily dismisses the relevance as insignificant. In the process, the opinion overlooks the limited reach of A.R.E. 404(b). The point made at the outset of this dissent bears repetition: Rule 404(b) operates to categorically exclude evidence of other misconduct only when the sole relevance of that evidence is to establish the defendant’s conduct by proving a propensity to engage in like conduct; once any relevance apart from propensity is established, Rule 404(b) ceases to operate as a prohibition, shifting the question of admissibility to the balancing process established in Rule 403.
The balancing test set out in A.R.E. 403, however, is one that is primarily for the trial court to apply. Alaska Northern Development, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, 666 P.2d 33, 42 (Alaska 1983); Hawley v. State, 614 P.2d 1349, 1361 (Alaska 1980); Dyer v. State, 666 P.2d 438, 451 (Alaska App.1983). The opinions written by the majority of the court in this case give no meaningful deference to that court’s superior command over factual issues. Neither opinion advances a satisfactory explanation for the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in applying the balancing test.6
*1315In summarily concluding that, for purposes of proving the November 23 sexual assault of S.F., the probative value of Velez’s November 14 attempted assault on G.J. was “more than outweighed by the potential for prejudice,” Judge Singleton’s opinion seems to assume that the only conceivable relevance of Velez’s attempted assault on G.J. lies in its tendency to show Velez’s recklessness by establishing that he had prior notice that his conduct was offensive to G.J. and that he was therefore aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that similar conduct might be offensive to S.F. This is certainly one point of relevance. Although I am far less willing than the majority of this court to dismiss out of hand the probative value of the evidence under this theory, the point is not determinative. For there is a separate theory under which Velez’s attempted assault on G.J. is more directly relevant to prove his culpable mental state in assaulting S.F.
It is important to note preliminarily that the mere fact that the state was required to prove that Velez acted at least recklessly with regard to S.F.’s lack of consent could not preclude the presentation of evidence showing that he acted knowingly or intentionally. Obviously, it would be irrational to argue that a man who deliberately raped a woman should thereafter be able to preclude the state from proving his culpable mental state because the evidence established that he acted intentionally rather than recklessly with regard to lack of consent. Such situations are foreseen and dealt with in the Alaska Revised Criminal Code, which expressly provides that recklessness may be established not only by evidence of reckless conduct but also by evidence showing one of the higher levels of culpable mental state. Alaska Statute 11.81.610(c) states, in relevant part: “If acting recklessly suffices to establish an element, that element also is established if a person acts intentionally or knowingly.”
Because Velez placed his culpable mental state in issue by claiming S.F.’s consent, the state was entitled, under this provision, to establish that he acted with knowledge of S.F.’s lack of consent. The evidence of Velez’s recent assault on G.J. did just that. Quite apart from its more tenuous tendency to show that Velez’s earlier attack on G.J. placed him on notice of the risk that S.F. might find his advances offensive, the attack on G.J. tended to directly and forcefully establish the probability that Velez was fully aware of S.F.’s state of mind and that he knowingly disregarded it.
This theory of relevance, commonly referred to as the theory of probabilities, has long been recognized as legitimate. Wright & Graham ascribe the theory of probabilities to Wigmore and make a point of noting that it is distinguishable from the use of evidence of other misconduct to show propensity:
The “intent” exception should be read broadly so as to cover any required mental element of the crime whether malice or knowledge or the absence of mistake, accident, duress or intoxication. The the*1316ory upon which evidence of other crimes is admissible on these issues under Rule 404(b) is that its use on the mental element of the offense does not require an inference as to the character of the accused or as to his conduct_ As Wig-more explains, the evidence of intent can be offered on the theory of probabilities. We can accept the defense that an accused car thief had a good faith belief that he had permission to take an automobile on one occasion but when the evidence shows that he made similar “mistakes” before, our doubts grow. It is the improbability of these fortuities rather than any inference as to the character of the accused that supports the belief in guilt.
Wright & Graham, § 5242 at 487-88 (footnotes omitted). It seems to me that this is the precise theory upon which we have previously found comparable proof to have manifest relevance as evidence of intent. See Davis, 635 P.2d at 485.
Wright & Graham go on to observe that “[similarity of offenses is an important consideration when the evidence of other crimes is offered to prove intent on Wig-more’s theory of improbability [sic].” Wright & Graham, § 5242 at 491. In the present case Judge Johnstone correctly noted numerous points of factual similarity between Velez’s assault on S.F. and his earlier assault on G.J. Judge Johnstone also properly considered that the two crimes were closely related in time, occurring within approximately two weeks of each other. Given the circumstantial and temporal similarity between the two offenses, I see utterly no basis for concluding that Judge Johnstone abused his discretion in finding that the probative value of Velez’s prior attempted assault on G.J. was substantially outweighed by its potential for prejudicial impact.
In reaching a contrary conclusion and finding that the evidence of Velez’s other assaults was more prejudicial than probative, the majority of the court appears to misunderstand the relevance of the disputed testimony under the theory of probabilities. Ironically, it is perhaps because the disputed testimony has such forceful weight as evidence of probability that the majority of the court confuses it with impermissible evidence of propensity.
Certainly, the evidence of Velez’s other sexual misconduct in this case must have had compelling impact, and in all likelihood it made the jury’s task a relatively simple one. Yet, the chief convincing force of the disputed testimony lay not in its indirect tendency to establish Velez’s guilt by showing that he was the type of person who committed sexual assaults and that he must therefore have acted in conformity with his character in committing the sexual assaults charged. Rather, the evidence had more obvious and immediate impact because it directly refuted Velez’s claim that he acted with innocent intent. That Velez might falsely be accused of rape after engaging in consensual sexual intercourse with one woman would not, in the abstract, be implausible. But the evidence here showed that in a one-month period Velez engaged or attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with three separate women, all of whom claimed rape.
In light of this evidence, the probability that Velez acted out of a reasonable and good faith belief that he was engaging in consensual sexual intercourse seems staggeringly low. Crucially, the conclusion that Velez’s consent defense is improbable is one that derives exclusively from the sheer improbability of three false accusations arising under similar circumstances in such a short period of time. This conclusion is distinct from and entirely independent of any tendency of the disputed evidence to show propensity; it does not entail the intermediate, and impermissible, inference that Velez is the type of person who commits rape and that he must therefore have committed the rapes with which he was charged: “It is the improbability of these fortuities rather than any inference as to the character of the accused that supports the belief in guilt.” Id.
The force of the disputed testimony as evidence of probability is, in my view, far more compelling than its impact as evidence of propensity. The mere fact that *1317the evidence is compelling evidence of Velez’s guilt should hardly serve as a basis for its exclusion.
Under the theory of probabilities, moreover, the evidence of Velez’s sexual assault on S.F. is at least as relevant to establish his intent in committing the attempted assault on G.J. as the evidence of the attempt on G.J. is to show his intent in the assault on S.F. The chronological order of the two assaults is unimportant to probative value under the theory of probabilities, because the issue of whether Velez had “prior notice” that his conduct was offensive simply is not germane. It is the fact of the two occurrences that renders the existence of the culpable mental state significantly more probable in each case, regardless of the order in which the offenses occurred. To the extent that there may be any distinction in probative value, the subsequent sexual assault would seem to have greater relevance as evidence of intent in the earlier case, because the earlier assault on G.J. was charged as an attempt, an offense involving specific intent.
The admissibility of the evidence relating to Velez’s uncharged October assault on his former girlfriend, C.S., remains to be considered. While the circumstantial similarities of the October assault are perhaps not as great as the similarities between the assaults on G.J. and S.F., they are nonetheless significant. The October assault was also closely related in time to the two charged offenses. Even more significantly, the evidence of the October assault on C.S. was admitted on rebuttal, in direct response to testimony by Velez that inaccurately explained his prior differences with C.S. In this context, admission of C.S.’s testimony concerning the prior offense was not an abuse of discretion.
Given the cross-admissibility of the challenged evidence of other misconduct, I would conclude that the trial court’s failure to grant a severance was, at most, harmless error.7 Accordingly, I would affirm Velez’s conviction.

. Although the issue is couched in terms of improper joinder, see Stevens v. State, 582 P.2d 621 (Alaska 1978), and Johnson v. State, 730 P.2d 175 (Alaska App.1986), it is clear that Velez could have suffered no prejudice from misjoin-der if evidence of the two assaults with which he was charged would have been cross-admissible in separate trials and, further, if evidence of his initial, uncharged assault would have been admissible in both cases. See, e.g., State v. York, 50 Wash.App. 446, 749 P.2d 683, 687-88 (1987). Our holding in Johnson is not to the contrary. Johnson upholds the right of automatic severance when cases are joined solely on the basis of the similarity of the offenses charged. Implicit in the rule of automatic severance adopted in Johnson is the recognition that admissibility of evidence of other misconduct will often depend on the specific context in which the evidence is offered at trial, and that it may therefore frequently be difficult to predict cross-admissibility with accuracy in advance of trial. Nothing in Johnson purports to establish a rule of per se reversal in the event of improper joinder or to alter the usual rules governing harmless error. When a trial court errs in denying automatic severance and it appears, following the trial, that evidence of each of the joint charges would properly have been admissible in a separate trial on the others, the error in failing to grant an automatic severance will be harmless unless the defendant establishes some other specific prejudice stemming from the mis-joinder. Here, Velez has shown no specific prejudice apart from the possible lack of cross-admissibility.

. A.R.E. 403 provides:

Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time.

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

. In addition, Key seems to place significance on the conclusion that, because the state bears the burden of proving the lack of consent to begin with, the fact that the defendant expressly raises a consent defense adds no new element to the state’s burden and therefore cannot be relied on as a basis for justifying the admission of evidence that would not otherwise be permitted. See Key, 203 Cal.Rptr. at 148. This reasoning, however, simply misinterprets the common restriction that limits reliance on the intent exception to Rule 404(b) to cases in which intent is *1313actually disputed. See Freeman v. State, 486 P.2d 967, 977-78 (Alaska 1971); Wright & Graham, § 5242 at 489. The significance of the defendant’s reliance on a consent defense is not that it imposes on the state the duty to prove a new element, but rather that it places into actual and serious dispute an element that, while there from the outset, might otherwise not have been actively contested.

. Our interpretation in Reynolds was based on our previous ruling in Neitzel v. State, 655 P.2d 325, 329 (Alaska App.1982), where we construed the provisions of the Alaska Revised Criminal Code governing general principles of criminal responsibility. Under AS 11.81.600(a), the minimal requirement for criminal liability is "conduct" involving a voluntary act or omission. In all but rare instances, the prohibited conduct must be accompanied by a culpable mental state. AS 11.81.600(b). Under AS 11.81.610, the elements of any crime may be separated into four categories: conduct, surrounding circumstance, result, and culpable mental state. Where no specific provision for a culpable mental state is made in the definition of an offense, AS 11.81.610 makes the following mental states applicable: for conduct, the prosecution must show that the accused acted knowingly; for a result or a circumstance, the prosecution must show that the defendant acted recklessly. The definition of first-degree sexual assault, as set out in AS 11.41.410(a)(1), does not specify a culpable mental state. In Reynolds, relying on Neitzel’s interpretation of AS 11.81.600 and AS 11.81.610, we concluded that, as to the prohibited conduct—sexual penetration—the applicable mental state is “knowingly”; as to the surrounding circumstance—lack of consent—the applicable mental state is “recklessly.”

. It might be argued that Key and Saltarelli are distinguishable because Alaska construes its sexual assault statute differently from California and Washington by requiring proof of recklessness as the culpable mental state the defendant must possess with regard to the victim’s lack of consent. No comparable mens rea requirement is explicitly recognized in many jurisdictions. This distinction, however, does not restore the validity of the analysis in Key and Saltarelli. Although Alaska may be unique in affirmatively requiring proof of recklessness with respect to the victim’s lack of consent, virtually all jurisdictions recognize, at the very least, a reasonable mistake of fact defense as to the victim’s lack of consent. In effect, then, virtually all jurisdictions recognize that the defendant must be shown to have acted at least negligently with respect to the victim’s lack of consent. According to Wright & Graham, absence of mistake is among the aspects of culpable mental state in-eluded in the intent exception to Rule 404(b). See Wright & Graham, § 5242 at 487. Thus, even taking into account the potential differences between Alaska law and the substantive provisions governing sexual assault in California and Washington, Key and Saltarelli are incorrect in concluding that a consent defense does not place the defendant's intent in issue.

. Judge Singleton’s opinion also somewhat clouds the issue with a discussion of Alaska cases considering other exceptions to A.R.E. 404(b). It discusses the "lewd disposition" rule articulated. in Burke v. State, 624 P.2d 1240, 1248-50 (Alaska 1980), and subsequently applied by this court in Moor v. State, 709 P.2d 498, 505-07 (Alaska App.1985), Bolden v. State, 720 P.2d 957, 960-61 (Alaska App.1986), and Soper v. State, 731 P.2d 587, 590-91 (Alaska App.1987). All of these cases address a sui *1315generis exception that is akin to the "motive” exception expressly provided for in A.R.E. 404(b); the exception permits use of evidence showing prior sexual contact between the defendant and the victim, or a person closely related to the victim, in order to establish the existence of a particular affinity between the defendant and the victim. This exception obviously has nothing to do with the issues of admissibility presented here, and our decisions dealing with this exception are inapposite. Somewhat more pertinent is our decision in Pletnikoff v. State, 719 P.2d 1039 (Alaska App. 1986), also discussed by Judge Singleton’s opinion and relied on almost exclusively by Velez on appeal. Pletnikoff involved a sexual assault prosecution in which the defendant claimed consent. The trial court allowed evidence of a prior episode of sexual contact between the defendant and another woman; it was undisputed, however, that the prior sexual contact was consensual. In reversing as violative of A.R.E. 404(b) the trial court’s admission of evidence dealing with the prior episode, our decision in Pletnikoff considered and rejected various of the listed exceptions to the rule, including common scheme and plan, modus operandi, and motive. The intent exception, however, was not argued or considered as a theory of relevance; the reason for this seems apparent: because the prior incident of sexual contact in Pletnikoff was acknowledged to have been consensual, it could have had no conceivable relevance on the issue of intent. To the extent that Pletnikoff contains any discussion of the intent exception to Rule 404(b), the discussion is clearly dicta, addressing an issue that was not only unnecessary but also not raised.

. Velez also argues that the trial court erred in denying a motion for continuance made by his trial counsel. In requesting the continuance, however, Velez’s trial counsel asserted only a generalized need for additional time to prepare, without specifying any particular matter that remained to be done. On appeal, Velez has failed to point out any specific deficiency or omission as having resulted from inadequate preparation by trial counsel or from the denial of the requested continuance. Velez does not claim that his trial counsel afforded him ineffective assistance. The time given to Velez’s trial counsel for preparation prior to trial—a period of approximately five weeks—is certainly not in and of itself so short as to give rise to an inference that effective assistance could not be provided. Absent a more specific showing of prejudice, I would find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Velez’s motion for a continuance. Patterson v. State, 689 P.2d 146, 148 (Alaska App.1984).