Defendant appeals his conviction for child molestation. Held:
1. The state’s motion to dismiss the appeal because defendant’s motion for new trial was not filed within 30 days of entry of the verdict and sentence is denied. Defendant’s notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the denial of his motion for new trial. “So long as the notice of appeal is filed within 30 days following ‘the entry of the order granting, overruling, or
otherwise finally disposing
of the motion’ for new trial, the appeal is timely. (Emphasis supplied.) Appellate Practice Act § 5 (Ga. L. 1965, pp. 18, 21; Ga. L. 1966, pp. 493, 496; Code Ann. § 6-803);
Harrison v. Harrison,
2. Defendant’s sole contention is that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other similar offenses. We find no error.
The state produced evidence that the defendant had committed anal sodomy on the 5-year-old male alleged victim. It then presented the testimony of two girls who stated that less than three years before the alleged offense, when they were aged seven and eleven, the defendant had indecently fondled them.
In sexual offense crimes evidence of similar prior acts is admissible to show the lustful disposition of the defendant and to corroborate the testimony of the victim as to the acts charged.
Felts v. State,
A similar rule obtains in cases of non-sexual abuse of children. “[SJince there is seldom a competent witness other than the defendant to whát occurred in a child abuse case, courts should be as liberal in admitting corroborative evidence of prior similar offenses as they have been in sexual offense cases, where ‘evidence of similar previous transactions is admissible... to corroborate the testimony of the victim as to the act charged. (Cits.)’
Warren v. State,
95 Ga. App.
*220
79, 80 (
Defendant argues that the fondling of the two girls was not similar to the acts charged because of the difference in the types of acts committed and the sex of the victims. We do not agree. The sexual molestation of young children, regardless of sex or type of act, is sufficient similarity to make the evidence admissible.
Defendant’s contention that
Pickelseimer v. State,
Judgment affirmed.
