State v. Juan J.

Summary

The court held that uncharged sexual-misconduct evidence was irrelevant and inadmissible to prove intent because the charged offenses were general-intent crimes and the defendant's theory was that the alleged conduct never occurred. The trial court therefore abused its discretion, and the error was harmful because the uncharged evidence portrayed substantially more severe and frequent abuse than the charged incidents and the state's case depended primarily on the complainant's credibility. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.