Appellant appeals from his conviction of child molestation.
1. Aрpellant enumerates as error the admission of testimony by the victim’s mother concerning statements made to her by the victim. The mother testified that, on a particular occasion after the victim had bеen left alone with appellant, the victim said that appellant had subjected her to an act of sexual abuse. Appellant contends that, contrary to the ruling of the lower court, this testimony did not сome within the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule because of the length of time whiсh elapsed between the occurrence and the victim’s statement.
According to the mother’s tеstimony, the victim remained in a car with appellant while the mother took another child on an errаnd. When the mother returned to the car, she observed that the victim was crying. As soon as she and the victim returned home and were out of appellant’s presence, she inquired as to what had happened, and the victim told her about the incident. However, the victim subsequently testified that, although she did tell her mother about the incident, she did not do so on the same day that it occurred.
“ ‘ “What is res gestae of a given transaction must depend upon
*892
its own peculiarities of character and circumstances. Courts must be аllowed some latitude in the matter. [Cit.] . . .” [Cit.]’ ‘The admissibility of such declarations does not depend upon any аrbitrary time or general rule for all cases, but is left to the sound discretion of the court in determining from the timе, circumstances and statements in question, whether declarations meet the requirements of being free from “all suspicion of device or afterthought.” [Cit.]’ [Cit.] It is also a well established rule of law that if the admissibility of еvidence is doubtful, the rules of evidence require that the evidence be admitted and its weight and effeсt left to the jury. [Cit.]”
Wallace v. State,
“Moreover, any [possible] error in the admission of the mother’s testimony was harmless. ‘The record is replete with evidence concerning the appellant’s commission of child mоlestation. Even without the mother’s account of the child’s res gestae declaration, there was testimony from [the victim as well as other evidence sufficient to establish] acts of child molestation.’ [Cit.]”
Pickelseimer v. State,
2. Apрellant asserts that the trial court erred in allowing a nurse who prepared the victim for examinatiоn by a physician to testify as to statements made to her by the victim. Even though the victim was examined severаl months after the sexual abuse occurred, her statements to the nurse were nonetheless made for the purpose of and were reasonably pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment. The tеstimony of the nurse did not identify or in any way refer to the appellant. Compare
Johnson v. State,
3. In his final enumeration, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a certified copy of his prior conviction in 1971 for child molestation. That conviction involved a factual situation quite similar to the case at bar, wherein aрpellant sexually abused his young niece.
“ ‘Evidence of other similar crimes by a defendant is admissible if therе is “sufficient similarity or connection between the independent crime and the offense charged, that proof of the former tends to prove the latter. [Cits.]” [Cit.] Such evidence may be admitted to show
*893
statе of mind or intent of a defendant. [Cit.] “In crimes involving sexual offenses, evidence of similar previous transactions is admissible ‘to show the lustful disposition of the defendant and to corroborate the testimony of the victim as to the act charged.’ [Cits.]” [Cit.]’ [Cits.]”
Mackler v. State,
The instant case is distinguishable from Pickelseimer, supra. In that case, the рrevious conviction was 18 years old, whereas the offenses for which appellant herein was сonvicted were committed within a nine-year span. Additionally, unlike Pickelseimer, appellant’s two convictions were based upon extremely similar factual situations. We find that the case at bar is analogous to Copeland, suрra, and that evidence of appellant’s prior conviction for a similar act of child molestation was properly admitted.
Judgment affirmed.