Page:Alford v. State.pdf/2

Rh
 * 1) CRIMINAL LAW—OTHER OFFENSES.—The principle of admitting evidence of other crimes is generally spoken of as being an exception to the general exclusionary rule, yet, as a matter of fact, it is not an exception; for it is not proof of other crimes as crimes that is admitted, but merely evidence of other acts, although they may be crimes, which are from their nature competent as showing knowledge, intent or design.
 * 2) CRIMINAL LAW—OTHER OFFENSES.—A recent similar offense committed by the accused is not for that reason alone competent evidence against him.
 * 3) CRIMINAL LAW—OTHER OFFENSES.—If the defendant overpowered his victim and ravished her, his motivation was not open to doubt and the earlier attack upon Mrs. A could have no conceivable pertinence except to brand the defendant as a criminal which is just what the State is not allowed to do.
 * 4) CRIMINAL LAW—CURING ERROR BY INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.—On a trial for rape, the prejudice, of incompetent evidence showing a recent similar attack on another person, could not be removed by the instruction of the trial court confining the testimony to the issue of intent.

Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Henry W. Smith, Judge; reversed.

Wiley A. Branton, for appellant.

Tom Gentry, Attorney General, and Thorp Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

G R S, J. The appellant was convicted of rape and was sentenced to death. In our opinion there are two errors in the record which entitle the appellant to a new trial.

Although it is contended that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict we find this contention to be without merit. The prosecutrix, Mrs. Morman, testified that shortly after midnight on May 26, 1953, Alford entered the isolated railroad building in which she was working as a telegrapher. When he revealed his purpose Mrs. Morman gave him her watch and money