¶1dissenting opinion.
¶2I dissent. In child molesting cases, the "depraved sexual instinct" rule allows admission of evidence of prior crimes by the defendant if those crimes show a depraved sexual instinet similar to the sexual instinet involved in the crime charged. Jarrett v. State, (1984) Ind., 465 N.E.2d 1097. I do not believe this rule can be used in this case to justify the admission of evidence that the defendant possessed a photograph of a nude seven-year-old boy and that the defendant and his wife had intercourse while this boy was sleeping in their bed. Unlike the evidence at issue in the cases cited by the majority, neither of these pieces of evidence shows a prior crime by the defendant. Nor does either piece of evidence show the defendant had a depraved inclination to molest children. In short, I believe the prejudicial effect of this evidence clearly outweighed its probative value. See Parrish v. State, (1984) Ind.App., 459 N.E.2d 391. I would hold that the trial court erred in admitting this evidence.