¶1dissenting.
¶2I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. I believe the majority places too stringent a restriction upon evidence of prior similar offenses. The other offenses allowed in evidence in this case were very similar to other offenses allowed in the case of Watts v. State (1950), 229 Ind. 80, 102-03, 95 N.E.2d 570, 579-80. In that case this Court reviewed the guidelines necessary for the introduction of prior crimes and held that evidence of six acts of rape or attempted rape occurring over a period of two and one-half years was admissible to show intent, motive, purpose, identification or common scheme and plan.
¶3In the case at bar, the manner in which appellant is alleged to have accomplished the rapes or attempted rapes is clearly sufficient to support one or several of the above exceptions to the rule of inadmissibility.
¶4I would therefore affirm the trial court.
¶5PIVARNIK, J., concurs.