People v. Houser

NOTICE 2020 IL App (4th) 170799-UThis order was filed under Supreme
FILED
Court Rule 23 and may not be cited NO. 4-17-0799 August 7, 2020
as precedent by any party except in Carla Bender
the limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate
under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal from the
Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of
v. ) Piatt County
GREGORY J. HOUSER, ) No. 16CF45
Defendant-Appellant. )
) Honorable
) Karle E. Koritz,
) Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
Justices DeArmond and Turner concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in denying defendant’s request to present evidence of an alternative suspect at trial
where defendant failed to establish a sufficient link between the third party and the
crimes committed against the victim.
¶2 Following a July 2017 jury trial, defendant, Gregory J. Houser, was found guilty of
first degree murder and sentenced to 55 years’ imprisonment for the unlawful killing of his
estranged wife, Sheryl Houser, inside the Houser residence on or about October 4, 1990. Defendant
appeals, arguing this court should reverse and remand for a new trial because the trial court
deprived him of his right to present a complete defense when it precluded him from presenting
evidence at trial showing another man had attacked and sexually assaulted a woman near the
Houser residence prior to Sheryl’s death. We affirm.
¶3 I. BACKGROUND
¶4 A. Information
¶5 In September 2016, the State charged defendant by information with four counts of
first degree murder (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 38, para. 9-1(a)(1), (2), (3)). The State alleged
defendant, on or about October 4, 1990, sexually assaulted and strangled Sheryl to death.
¶6 B. Motion in Limine
¶7 Prior to trial, defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to present evidence of an
alternative suspect at trial. Defendant alleged a man who had attacked and sexually assaulted a
woman near the Houser residence prior to Sheryl’s death may have committed the alleged crimes
against Sheryl given the similarities in the crimes committed. The State objected, contending any
similarities in the crimes committed were insufficient to link them together to suggest a common
perpetrator.
¶8 The following factual basis was presented to the trial court concerning the crimes
committed in the prior case. During the early afternoon of July 18, 1989, an 18-year-old Caucasian
woman who had brown hair and blue eyes, stood at 5’8’’, and weighed 130 pounds, was outside
jogging alone near the Houser residence, which was in a rural, low-crime area. A man appeared
from behind the woman and began running alongside her. The man started a casual conversation
with the woman. The woman recalled the man stating, “I’m not from around here. I’m from
Chicago.” Suddenly, the man grabbed the woman from behind and placed her in a choke hold,
causing her to lose consciousness. When the woman woke, the man was gone. Further
investigation revealed she had been the victim of a sexual assault. The sexual assault occurred 1.82
miles from the Houser residence “as a crow flies” or 2.4 miles from the Houser residence traveling
by road. The man’s semen was found on the woman.
¶9 The following factual basis was presented to the trial court concerning the crimes
committed in the instant case. During the evening of October 4, 1990, Sheryl, a 29-year-old
-2-
Caucasian woman who had brown hair and blue eyes, stood at 5’6’’, and weighed 120 pounds,
was at home with her three young children. Early the next morning, Sheryl was found dead in the
garage in what appeared to be a suicide. Upon further investigation, the evidence indicated the
scene was staged and Sheryl had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death by someone’s
hands. A used condom was discovered at the scene. Blood from an unidentified male source was
discovered on Sheryl’s nightgown. The deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) from the blood did not
match the DNA from the semen found in the prior case.
¶ 10 Defendant argued the crimes committed in the prior case and the alleged crimes
committed in the instant case were substantially similar to warrant the introduction of evidence of
the prior case to suggest the perpetrator in that case may have committed the alleged crimes in the
instant case. Specifically, defendant highlighted both cases involved victims of similar appearance
being choked and sexually assaulted by a man in the same rural, low-crime area within a relatively
short period of time. Defendant further asserted the perpetrator in both cases acted recklessly given
the crimes occurred either during the day on a public way or at night when others were nearby.
¶ 11 The State argued the crimes committed in the prior case and the instant case were
not substantially similar to warrant the introduction of evidence of the prior case to suggest the
perpetrator in that case may have committed the alleged crimes in the instant case. The State
highlighted, unlike the instant case where the perpetrator attempted to disguise himself by using a
condom and staging the scene to look like a suicide, the perpetrator in the prior case did not make
any attempts to conceal himself. The State further highlighted, unlike the instant case where the
perpetrator strangled the victim by hand and used a condom, the perpetrator in the prior case
subdued the victim by chokehold and did not use a condom. Finally, the State highlighted, unlike
the instant case where the perpetrator acted at night when others were around, the perpetrator in
-3-
the prior case acted during the day when nobody was around.
¶ 12 After considering the factual bases concerning the crimes committed in both cases,
as well as the arguments presented, the trial court denied defendant’s motion in limine, finding any
similarities in the crimes committed were insufficient to link them together to suggest a common
perpetrator.
¶ 13 C. Jury Trial
¶ 14 In a July 2017, the trial court conducted an eight-day jury trial. The following is
gleaned from the evidence presented.
¶ 15 In 1983, defendant and Sheryl married. In 1990, the couple and their three young
children lived in a home in a rural area on the border of Champaign and Piatt Counties. Sheryl
worked as a nurse, and defendant worked as a mechanic and volunteer firefighter.
¶ 16 In July 1990, defendant filed for a divorce from Sheryl. Sheryl, thereafter, filed an
answer and a counterclaim seeking a divorce from defendant.
¶ 17 On August 8, 1990, police officers responded to the marital home. Defendant
reported an argument occurred between him and Sheryl concerning Sheryl seeing someone.
Defendant stated he did not hit Sheryl he “just grabbed her arms.” Sheryl reported defendant
accused her of seeing someone and then grabbed her arms, held her down on the floor, and told
her he would keep her there all night if he had to. Officers observed bruising to Sheryl’s arm in
the location where she reported being grabbed. Defendant was arrested for battery.
¶ 18 On August 20, 1990, the trial court found grounds for the divorce had been
established and ordered a child custody assessment.
¶ 19 On August 28, 1990, Sheryl filed for an emergency order of protection and gave
testimony at a hearing. Given the emergency nature of the hearing, defendant was not given
-4-
advance notice of the hearing. Sheryl testified defendant forced her to have oral sex on threat of
having the children taken away from her. Sheryl further testified the incident occurred while the
children were present in the home. Based on the testimony presented, the trial court ordered
defendant to refrain from harassing, interfering with the personal liberty, and intimidating or
physically abusing Sheryl or any other family or household member.
¶ 20 On September 12, 1990, the trial court, with the agreement of the parties, entered a
temporary custody order providing the children were to remain in the marital home and defendant
and Sheryl were to alternate 3.5 days per week in the home. The case was then set for a hearing on
permanent matters on October 29, 1990.
¶ 21 At some point when defendant and Sheryl were alternating occupancy of the marital
home, defendant, with the assistance of two friends, spied on Sheryl from a cornfield when she
was in the marital home at night. The men did so because defendant believed Sheryl was seeing
someone.
¶ 22 On September 20, 1990, Sheryl received a phone call from defendant asking her to
come to the marital home because of a sick child. Sheryl provided the following account at a later
hearing as to what occurred after she went to the marital home that evening. After checking on the
children, Sheryl had a conversation with defendant where he asked her to “come back to him.”
After she indicated the relationship was over and began to leave, defendant grabbed her, dragged
her into a bedroom, pushed her onto a bed, restrained her with a nylon rope he used for hunting,
and gagged her. Defendant specifically restrained Sheryl with the rope by wrapping it around her
wrist, neck, and face. Defendant put his hand in Sheryl’s vagina and his penis in her face, ordering
her to “suck on it real hard or [she] would be in real trouble.” When defendant eventually let Sheryl
up, he ordered her to write on a piece of paper she consented to have sex with him. Sheryl attempted
-5-
to escape, at which time defendant grabbed her, pulled her back into the house, bent her over a
couch, and attempted to get her to sign a blank piece of paper. Sheryl was eventually able to free
herself and ran to the neighbor’s house.
¶ 23 The neighbors allowed Sheryl inside their home and noticed abrasions and swelling
to her lips, scratches and swelling to her eyes, marks on her neck, and bruises on her wrist and
legs. Sheryl stated to her neighbors that defendant had tried to rape and strangle her. Police were
called. Sheryl was upset and crying, making it difficult for her to speak to the police officers. The
officers observed Sheryl’s injuries, which they believed were consistent with Sheryl’s account of
what happened to her. The officers went to the marital home and spoke with defendant, who denied
Sheryl’s account. The officers observed what appeared to be blood and a pearl earring, separated
from its clasp, in the master bed. The officers noted Sheryl was wearing the matching earring.
Defendant was arrested and charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault and unlawful
restraint.
¶ 24 During the week that followed the September 20, 1990, incident, Sheryl reported
having been sexually assaulted by defendant to both her work supervisor and her best friend.
¶ 25 On September 24, 1990, Sheryl filed a petition for emergency relief based on the
September 20, 1990, incident. At the hearing, Sheryl gave the testimony described above. The
hearing resulted in Sheryl receiving temporary custody of the children and exclusive use of the
marital home, and defendant receiving three hours of supervised visitation per week. After the
September 20 incident, Sheryl’s neighbor helped Sheryl change the locks to the marital home.
¶ 26 On October 3, 1990, Sheryl and her best friend had lunch together. Sheryl discussed
upcoming events, including that she planned on attending a birthday party for her friend’s son.
Multiple witnesses opined Sheryl was not suicidal and testified to Sheryl’s love for her children
-6-
and to her efforts to plan for the future, such as obtaining a credit card in her own name, setting
out clothing for school picture day, and buying Halloween costumes for her children.
¶ 27 On October 4, 1990, Sheryl went to her parent’s farm with the children. Later that
evening, Sheryl returned to the marital home with the children. Sheryl’s neighbors saw Sheryl
getting the children out of the vehicle that evening. That same day, defendant attended a
going-away party for a friend. Defendant’s friend who was moving away did not recall testifying
in a prior deposition that defendant was the first one to leave the going-away party. The individual
hosting the going-away party recalled defendant was not at the party at the end of the night.
¶ 28 On October 5, 1990, a police officer who was patrolling through Mansfield noticed
a vehicle driving slowly through the area around 1:40 a.m. The officer ran the license plates of the
vehicle, which revealed the owner was one of the men who helped defendant spy on Sheryl. The
officer observed another man in the passenger seat of the vehicle but could not identify the man.
¶ 29 Later that morning, Sheryl did not arrive for her scheduled work shift. A coworker
called the telephone number for the marital home, and one of the children answered. The child,
who was six years old at the time, reported Sheryl was sleeping in the garage with a rope around
her neck and would not wake up. 911 was called.
¶ 30 Bobby Henderson, a volunteer firefighter, received a page concerning the Houser
residence and a possible medical emergency and then drove directly there. Upon his arrival, one
of Sheryl’s neighbors arrived. They both entered the home. The three children were inside and one
of the children indicated Sheryl was in the garage. The men went to the garage, where they
discovered Sheryl dead. Her body, which was covered by only a nightgown, was partially
suspended in the air with a nylon rope wrapped around the neck. The rope was connected to a pipe
in the rafters. Other firefighters, including defendant, arrived at the scene. After Henderson told
-7-
defendant not to enter the garage, defendant asked what was wrong with Sheryl. Henderson later
told the police defendant broke down at the scene.
¶ 31 Gerald Pea, who was a crime scene investigator with the Illinois State Police at the
time of Sheryl’s death, responded to the martial home and documented and photographed what he
observed. The home had no signs of forced entry. The nylon rope suspending Sheryl’s body in the
garage was wrapped around Sheryl’s neck three times and knotted at the back of the neck. The
clothing tag to Sheryl’s nightgown was caught in the rope. Sheryl had blood and saliva on the left
shoulder of her nightgown. She had apparent abrasions on her elbow and ankle, and her heels
looked dirty. A used condom was found on the floor of a recreation room leading from the garage.
Pea did not recall if the condom was dry or moist when he found it or if he had to move anything
to find the condom. Pea did not recall if he told Steven Hankel, a criminal investigator assigned to
the case, he found a dry, used condom under a garbage bag.
¶ 32 Steven Hankel, who was a criminal investigator with the Illinois State Police at the
time of Sheryl’s death, responded to the marital home and interviewed defendant. Defendant
reported having gone to a going-away party the night before and then to his parents’ house
followed by his grandparents’ house, where he spent the night. Defendant acknowledged that was
the first time he spent the night at his grandparents’ house since he married Sheryl. He reported
staying awake talking with his grandparents until 10:30 p.m. The next morning, defendant returned
to his parents’ house to shower and then returned to his grandparents’ house for breakfast. After
breakfast, he drove his truck to the fire department to wash it. While at the fire department, he
received a page to go to the marital home. Defendant reported he was unaware of the nature of the
call. Defendant stated the last time he was in the garage was around September 23, 1990, and he
had not had contact with Sheryl since September 24, 1990. Hankel, who recalled hearing about a
-8-
dried condom found underneath some garbage bags in a room near the garage, asked defendant
when was the last time he and Sheryl had sex, to which defendant stated sometime in early August
1990. Defendant also indicated he and Sheryl used condoms as a means of birth control. Defendant
reported his suspicion that Sheryl was having an affair with a man named Walter Rohr, had a drug
problem, and suffered from depression. Defendant denied any involvement in Sheryl’s death.
¶ 33 Bob Manint, who worked at the sheriff’s office at the time of Sheryl’s death,
accompanied Sheryl’s body to Springfield for an autopsy. When Sheryl’s body was placed on the
autopsy table, Manint did not notice anything on her nightgown. Fragments of a latex glove were
discovered inside the rope around Sheryl’s neck. Dr. Grant Johnson, who performed the autopsy,
concluded Sheryl’s main cause of death was compression of the neck. Dr. Johnson was unable to
determine if Sheryl’s death was caused by suicide or homicide.
¶ 34 On October 10, 1990, Phillip Sallee, an Illinois State Police forensic scientist,
received the used condom from the Houser residence and then preserved it in the freezer division
of the state police lab until he examined it on October 23, 1990. He noted the condom “was older,
not recently used.” He estimated the condom was “at least days old and not necessarily weeks old”
but could not give a scientific opinion on the issue. Sallee discovered separated sperm, which was
indicative of an older stain. Sallee examined oral, vaginal, and rectal swabs from Sheryl and did
not detect the presence of semen. Sallee examined two wooden sticks used to collect fingernail
scrapings from Sheryl and did not detect any debris on the sticks. Sallee examined the sheets from
the September 20, 1990, incident and could not obtain genetic markers for comparison.
¶ 35 On or about October 18, 1990, Kevin Horath, an Illinois State Police forensic
scientist, received various items from the crime scene for forensic testing. No hairs or fibers were
found on the rope used against Sheryl. No fingerprints were found on the pipe in the garage or on
-9-
the fragments of rubber gloves discovered within the rope. The process of examining the glove
fragments for fingerprints destroyed any DNA.
¶ 36 On January 23, 1991, a coroner’s inquest found the cause of Sheryl’s death to be
undetermined. That same month, the State sought the opinion of a forensic reconstructionist, Rob
Englert. Englert was qualified to testify at trial as an expert witness in the field of crime scene
reconstruction and blood stain analysis.
¶ 37 Englert testified Sheryl’s body had injuries indicative of a struggle prior to her
death. Specifically, Englert noted abrasions to Sheryl’s left elbow, hip, and foot. Englert testified
the injuries indicated Sheryl’s heart was pumping at the time they were inflicted. Englert also
testified Sheryl’s body had lividity and blanching which would not occur unless her body was laid
somewhere prior to being suspended in the air. Englert testified the condition of Sheryl’s body and
her nightgown suggested she was dragged across a surface, such as a dirty garage floor.
Specifically, Englert noted Sheryl’s heels and nightgown were dirty and she had corn stalk adhered
to the wet abrasions on her foot.
¶ 38 Englert testified Sheryl’s body had injuries consistent with a homicide as opposed
to a suicide. Specifically, Englert noted lateral ligature groves around the neck, petechial
hemorrhaging, and the absence of bruising around the neck above the rope. Engler testified the
marks and bruising under Sheryl’s mandible were “typical of manual strangulation, which is from
a hand.” Englert also testified the manner in which the rope was used was consistent with a
homicide as opposed to a suicide. Specifically, Englert noted the rope was tied around Sheryl’s
neck so tightly it caused blistering and the rope was tied from behind. Englert also noted the tag
of Sheryl’s nightgown was stuck in the rope and fragments of a latex glove were stuck in the rope.
¶ 39 Englert identified a red circular blood stain near the hem of Sheryl’s nightgown,
- 10 -
which he asserted did not appear in any photographs taken of Sheryl’s body while she was at the
marital home. Englert opined the blood on the nightgown was from morgue contamination.
¶ 40 In May 1991, a jury acquitted defendant of the charges stemming from the
September 20, 1990, incident.
¶ 41 In June 2001, Jennifer Aper, a forensic scientist with the Illinois State Police, began
reexamining evidence in this case. Aper was qualified to testify as an expert in the field of forensic
DNA analysis. Aper examined the condom found in the marital home for DNA and found both
Sheryl and defendant were possible contributors to a DNA profile mixture. Aper examined the two
wooden sticks used to collect fingernail scraping from Sheryl and found there was insufficient
DNA to obtain a DNA profile. Aper examined the blood stains on Sheryl’s nightgown and detected
a major and minor male DNA profile that excluded defendant. The profile was then compared to
members of the Houser family, individuals who responded to the crime scene, and individuals who
attended the autopsy. When no match was found, Aper concluded the blood was either from an
unidentified person who had contact with Sheryl or contamination from the morgue. Aper knew
of two cases of morgue contamination.
¶ 42 Around 2011, Dr. Scott Denton, a forensic, anatomic, and clinical pathologist,
examined Sheryl’s death. Dr. Denton was qualified to testify at trial as an expert in the field of
forensic pathology.
¶ 43 Dr. Denton testified Sheryl’s body had “recent” injuries at the time of her death.
Specifically, he noted abrasions on the hip, thigh, elbow, ankle, and foot. Dr. Denton opined the
abrasion to the thigh was consistent with a rope scraping against it. He also testified the abrasion
to the elbow could have been sustained in a sexual assault.
¶ 44 Dr. Denton testified Sheryl’s body had injuries consistent with a homicide as
- 11 -
opposed to a suicide. Specifically, Dr. Denton noted lateral ligature groves around the neck,
petechial hemorrhaging, and the absence of bruising around the neck above the rope. Dr. Denton
testified Sheryl had bruising of the neck consistent with manual strangulation. Dr. Denton also
testified the manner in which the rope was used was consistent with a homicide as opposed to a
suicide. Specifically, he noted the rope was tied around Sheryl’s neck so tightly it would have
caused a person to lose consciousness within 15 seconds and the rope was tied from behind in a
complex slipknot. Dr. Denon also noted the tag of Sheryl’s nightgown and fragments of a latex
glove were stuck in the rope. Dr. Denton found saliva stains on Sheryl’s nightgown were
inconsistent with the position in which her body was discovered.
¶ 45 Dr. Denton identified a red stain near the hem of Sheryl’s nightgown, which he
asserted did not appear in any photographs taken of Sheryl’s body while she was at the marital
home. He opined the stain was either contamination from the funeral director cot, the reusable
velour transport carryall, or the autopsy cart. Dr. Denton acknowledged morgue contamination
was rare but maintained it could not have come from Sheryl’s killer as it was not present in the
photographs taken from the marital home.
¶ 46 Sheryl’s father testified defendant went deer hunting on his farmland. One of the
children testified to hunting with defendant and seeing him suspend a deer in the garage with a
rope and hooks. A former coworker of defendant testified, sometime in September 1990, he
overheard a conversation where defendant, who was upset with Sheryl, stated if she “didn’t
straighten up that he would use the rope and do her like he did his deer.” The coworker testified
he took the comment “very seriously” but acknowledged he told a police officer in June 1991 that
he thought defendant was joking when he made the comment.
¶ 47 The defense called Walter Rohr to testify. Rohr testified he and Sheryl were friends
- 12 -
and Sheryl would confide in him about troubles in her marriage to defendant. Rohr had been to the
marital home approximately four times. During those occasions, defendant was also present.
Sometime in July or August 1990, Rohr and Sheryl spent the day together and had sex. Rohr
testified Sheryl fell upon his chest after they had sex and stated, “[I]f Greg knew about this he
would kill me.” Rohr explained to Sheryl they had made a mistake and it should not happen again.
Rohr testified Sheryl appeared to understand it was a mistake. On October 4, 1990, Rohr fell asleep
by 7:30 p.m. and then woke up the next morning at 5:30 a.m. When he woke up, his father was in
the house. On October 9, 1990, Rohr was interviewed by the police. He did not disclose his prior
sexual relation with Sheryl. On September 23, 2016, a police officer took a buccal swab from
Rohr. Rohr did not disclose his prior sexual relation with Sheryl. The next day, Rohr called the
police to schedule an interview. During the interview, he disclosed his sexual encounter with
Sheryl and noted it was possible his DNA might be at the Houser residence.
¶ 48 The defense also called to testify a woman who went to school with defendant and
who began dating him in 2000. The woman testified defendant had never been physically abusive
to her.
¶ 49 In closing, the defense admitted the evidence showed Sheryl had been murdered
but asserted the State did not prove defendant committed the murder. The defense further argued
the State failed to prove Sheryl was sexually assaulted or that defendant committed the alleged
sexual assault.
¶ 50 Following its deliberations, the jury found defendant committed the offense of first
degree murder and that he the committed said offense during the commission of a sexual assault.
¶ 51 D. Posttrial Proceedings
¶ 52 In August 2017, defendant filed a motion for a new trial, arguing, in part, the trial
- 13 -
court erred when it prevented him from presenting evidence showing another man had attacked
and sexually assaulted a woman near the Houser residence prior to Sheryl’s death. Following a
hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion and sentenced him to 55 years’ imprisonment.
Defendant filed a motion to reconsider his sentence, which the court later denied.
¶ 53 This appeal followed.
¶ 54 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 55 On appeal, defendant argues this court should reverse and remand for a new trial
because the trial court deprived him of his right to present a complete defense when it prevented
him from presenting evidence showing another man had attacked and sexually assaulted a woman
near the marital residence prior to Sheryl’s death. The State disagrees, maintaining the trial court
properly denied the introduction of any such evidence as it was too remote and speculative.
¶ 56 “A reviewing court will not disturb the trial court’s decision regarding the
admission of evidence at trial absent a clear abuse of discretion.” People v. Robinson, 217 Ill. 2d
43, 62, 838 N.E.2d 930, 941 (2005). “An abuse of discretion will be found only where the trial
court’s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable, or where no reasonable person would take the
view adopted by the trial court.” People v. Caffey, 205 Ill. 2d 52, 89, 792 N.E.2d 1163, 1188
(2001).
¶ 57 “An accused in a criminal case may offer evidence tending to show that someone
else committed the charged offense.” People v. Beaman, 229 Ill. 2d 56, 75, 890 N.E.2d 500, 511
(2008). That right, however, “is not without limitations.” People v. Ward, 101 Ill. 2d 443, 455, 463
N.E.2d 696, 701 (1984). “[I]f the evidence is too remote or too speculative, or if it fails to link a
third person with the commission of the crime, then the trial court should exclude the
evidence.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Kelley, 2019 IL App (4th) 160598, ¶ 113,
- 14 -
133 N.E.3d 641.
¶ 58 In this case, defendant sought to present evidence suggesting a man who had
attacked and sexually assaulted a woman near the marital residence prior to Sheryl’s death may
have committed the alleged crimes against Sheryl. In an attempt to establish the requisite link
between the perpetrator of the crimes in the prior case with the perpetrator of the crimes against
Sheryl, defendant asserted the similarities in the crimes committed in both cases established a
pattern of criminal behavior so distinctive that the separate crimes could be recognized as the
handiwork of the same person.
¶ 59 In the prior case, the perpetrator attacked and subdued the victim by placing her in
a chokehold while she was jogging alone on a public road during the day and made no efforts to
conceal the fact the crimes had been committed. Conversely, in this case the perpetrator attacked
and manually strangled Sheryl to death while she was at home with her children at night and made
great efforts to conceal the fact the crimes had been committed. We, like the trial court, find any
similarities in the crimes committed were insufficient to link them together to suggest a common
perpetrator. Absent any other showing connecting the perpetrator of the crimes in the prior case
with the crimes committed against Sheryl, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in
denying defendant’s request to introduce evidence of the prior case.
¶ 60 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 61 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 62 Affirmed.
- 15 -