Dеfendant was indicted in two counts for the offense of child molestation and one count of sodomy. The jury returned a vеrdict of guilty as to each count, and defendant was sentenced to serve a term in confinement. A motion for new trial was filed and denied. Defendant appeals. Held:
1. Certain physical evidence introduced at trial was obtained during the search of a motel room rented to one Francis N. Hardy (See
Hardy v. State,
Defendant also contends that the exhibits taken from the motel room were not relevant to the case against him. These exhibits consisted primarily of still and moving photographs of nude male teenagers, along with related photographic material and supplies. In many of the photographs the teenagers appear to be sexually aroused and in some photographs pairs of teenagers are shown engaged in mutual genital fondling. The statе produced circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s connection with the taking and retention of these
*801
рhotographs. These exhibits were properly admitted as they may have a tendency to show defendant’s bent of mind toward the sexual activity with which he was charged.
Felker v. State,
2. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in its refusal to grant his motion to suppress evidence seized in a search of his home, arguing that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was predicated failed to establish the rеliability of an informant. The affidavit shows that the affiant interviewed a named 12-year-old male child who told of being involved in аcts of sodomy with defendant at his home on several occasions. This child indicated that photographs were tаken of him in the nude on at least one of these occasions. Affiant was told by this child that about two weeks previously hе had been in defendant’s home and seen the camera used for this purpose.
The declarant was named, his statеments based on personal observation, and the affidavit shows that the declarant was a victim of the crime. This satisfies the two-pronged Aguilar-Spinelli (Aguilar v. Texas,
3. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a change of venue based on prejudicial pretrial publicity. As the testimony of the prospective jurors on vоir dire shows that they were impartial and were not influenced by the pretrial publicity about the case we find no abusе on the part of the trial court in denying defendant’s motion for a change of venue.
Green v. State,
4. Through the testimony of its witnesses, as well as photographic exhibits, the state introduced evidence of other incidents of sexual misconduct betweеn defendant and young males. Exceptions to the general rules governing the conditions under which evidence of other crimes is admissible to show plan, motive and intent have been applied in sex cases, the reasoning being that a tendency toward sexual deviancy, if relevant to the crime for which the defendant is on trial, is admissible because it is out оf the ordinary in that it supplies a motive and makes credible what would otherwise be
*802
difficult of belief.
Beldonza v. State,
Contrary to the assertion of defendant’s sixth and seventh enumerations of error none of the testimony as to other similar crimes was inadmissible due to application of Code § 38-306. This testimony involved a direct account of matters in which the witness participated and involved no hearsay issues.
5. Defendant’s final enumeration of error alleges error in the denial of his motion for continuance. The colloquy relating to the motion for сontinuance shows that an earlier request for a continuance made by defense counsel in order to devеlop certain information had been granted. During this delay defense counsel was able to get a witness whom she intendеd to call to testify in favor of defendant, but shortly before trial she had learned that this potential witness “had shot himself and is dеad.” The additional continuance in question was sought in order to allow defense counsel an opportunity to “gеt other witnesses.” However, defense counsel failed to show the names of any witnesses who might be obtained and whethеr or not they would be subject to subpoena. “All applications for continuance are addressed to the sоund legal discretion of the court and shall be granted or refused as the ends of justice may require. Code Ann. § 81-1419.”
Lakes v. State,
Judgment affirmed.