State v. Cox

In State v. Cox, 787 P.2d 4 (Utah Ct. App. 1990), the Utah Court of Appeals held that the similarities between two incidents were not sufficient. Those similarities were that the: (1) defendant knew each victim; (2) defendant had nonconsensual intercourse, at each victims' home, while the victims' boyfriends or husbands were not home; (3) defendant was uninvited and began the assaults soon after entering the home; (4) defendant laid on top of the victims; (5) defendant did not completely remove his clothing or the victims' clothing, and in each instance, attempted to kiss the victim on the face and neck; (6) defendant left the premises after completing the assault. 787 P.2d at 6. The Cox Court concluded that the defendant's actions did not constitute common design or modus operandi. Id.