The appellant, Jerry Childs, was convicted of two counts of child molestation, two counts of attempted child molestation, and one count of statutory rape. On appeal, he contеnds that the trial court erred in admitting testimony of two witnesses recounting the appellant’s alleged sexual abuse of them when they were small children, and that the trial court should have directed a verdiсt of acquittal.
The three victims were sisters, aged 9, 11, and 12 at the time of the alleged incidents of molеstation, and the appellant was their uncle. All of the incidents occurred at the appеllant’s house or at the house of the victims’ grandmother, who was the appellant’s mother-in-law. The two molestation counts charged the appellant with having exposed himself to the 9-year-old child on one occasion and with having placed his hand on her breast on another. The two cоunts of attempted child molestation charged the appellant with trying to place his hand on the breast and down the pants of the 11-year-old child. The statutory rape count involved the 12-year-old sister.
Each child testified about the sexual conduct manifested by the appellant. The 9-year-оld recalled the appellant standing naked in his bedroom shaking his penis at her, and another oсcasion when he had placed his hand on her breast. The 11-year-old remembered spending the night with hеr grandmother, and the appellant entering the bedroom and placing his hand down her night shirt; also, one time when she spent the night with the appellant’s daughter, the appellant had tried to put his hand down her pants. The 12-year-old child testified that, on November 13, 1982, when she was sick in bed at her grandmother’s house, thе appellant had removed the bed covers, pulled up *258 her gown, and had sexual intercourse with her. Afterwards, he told her that no one would believe her if she ever told anyone what had hapрened. (She also recalled an earlier rape when she was 9 years old, and even eаrlier episodes when he had set her on his knees and offered her candy to play with his penis.)
Two оther witnesses were allowed to testify over objection about sexual advances made by thе appellant upon them when they were small children. One witness, whose uncle had married the sister of the appellant’s wife, stated that when she was 8 years old (11 years before the trial), she had ridden а horse with the appellant, who had then tried to unfasten her shirt and pants. He had desisted when she protested, but he told her that her parents would no longer love her if she did not do as he wished. The other witnеss, who was 17 years old at the time of the trial and a cousin of the three victims, testified that approximately six years earlier the appellant had raped her in the house of the victims’ grandmother. Held:
1. The appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of the two witnesses about the appellant’s molestation of them when they were children, on the basis that these incidents, which occurred 11 and 6 years before the trial, were too remote and prejudicial. However, in condoning a liberal approach to admission of evidence of independent crimes in cases concerning sexual abuse of children, for the purpose of demonstrating intent, motive, plan, scheme, and bent of mind, this court has approved use of evidence of prior inсidents far more remote than those in the instant case.
Whited v. State,
In thе instant case, it appears that the appellant had a scheme to prey upon every available female child within his family circle, and the prior incidents related by the two witnesses wеre extremely similar to the offenses for which he was tried and convicted. Accordingly, this case falls within the ambit of
Whited, Cox,
and
Copeland,
rather than
Pickelseimer,
and the evidence of the prior incidents was properly admitted.
Sparks v. State,
2. The appellant also contends that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict of acquittal on all counts, on the basis that the evidence was “inconsistent, illogical, and physically impossible as it suppоrts two theories,” citing
L. C. v. State of Ga.,
Judgment affirmed.