People v. Smith, 29 N.E.3d 674

Defendant John E. Smith was convicted by a jury of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, three counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse, and one count of sexual exploitation of a child for incidents in Feb.–Mar. 2012 involving two unrelated young girls (B.N. and S.N.).
The State sought to admit testimony from two women (Jennifer and Jill) describing uncharged, earlier sexual-abuse allegations occurring from ~1994–2000 involving defendant and those women when they were children (defendant was Jill’s stepfather). The trial court admitted that evidence under 725 ILCS 5/115-7.3, limiting testimony to facts similar to the charged acts and excluding some more dissimilar conduct.
The prior-allegations testimony described removal of pants, viewing of vaginas, touching/finger insertion into vaginas, and occasional exposure of defendant’s penis; the charged incidents involved similar touching, viewing, and digital contact.
Defendant moved for a new trial arguing the prior-act evidence was unduly prejudicial given its age and that it consisted of uncharged allegations (not convictions); the trial court denied the motion and imposed consecutive prison terms.
On appeal defendant argued the court abused its discretion in admitting other-crimes evidence by overvaluing factual similarity and undervaluing temporal lapse and the unproven nature of the prior allegations; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	People’s Argument	Smith’s Argument	Held
Admissibility of uncharged prior sexual-abuse allegations under 725 ILCS 5/115-7.3	Evidence is relevant to propensity/intent/absence of mistake because prior acts are factually similar to charged acts and probative value outweighs prejudice	Prior allegations are stale (12–18 years), unproven (no convictions), and therefore unduly prejudicial; trial court misweighed factors	Trial court did not abuse discretion; similarities were "remarkably similar," temporal gap not dispositive, steps taken to limit prejudice justified admission

People v. Donoho, 204 Ill. 2d 159 (superseding rule on other-crimes evidence and need to meaningfully balance probative value vs. prejudicial effect)
People v. Ward, 2011 IL 108690 (section 115-7.3 permits propensity evidence in certain sex-offense prosecutions)
People v. Sutherland, 223 Ill. 2d 187 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
People v. Hall, 195 Ill. 2d 1 (principles on judicial discretion reviewed in Sutherland quote)
People v. Butler, 377 Ill. App. 3d 1050 (threshold similarity required for other-offenses evidence)
People v. Illgen, 145 Ill. 2d 353 (deference to trial court where reasonable minds may differ)
People v. Smith, 406 Ill. App. 3d 747 (contrast case excluding stale uncharged allegations due to long lapse and greater dissimilarity)
People v. Davis, 260 Ill. App. 3d 176 (example where very-old other-crimes evidence was affirmed as probative)