The Case

Where an appellate court was reviewing a trial judge's exercise of judgment as to whether similar fact evidence should be admitted in borderline circumstances, which was ultimately a question of degree, all due deference would be paid to the trial judge's view. In the instant case, which the trial judge had properly described as being a borderline case and which involved only one previous incident, although a different judge might have reached a different conclusion, paying due deference to the trial judge's decision, she had been entitled to conclude that the similar fact threshold had been met.