Upon appeal to the Supreme Court of the state the judgment of the lower court was reversed, upon the ground that the homicide was committed upon what it found to be the Ft. Missoula military reservation, which was held to be a place under the exclusive control of the United States; the jurisdiction, therefore, being in the federal courts, and not in those of the state. State v. Tully (Mont.) 78 P. 760. The defendant, having been discharged, was apprehended by the federal authorities, held to answer, and afterwards, on the 29th day of April, 1905, an indictment was returned against him in this court, which charges that the crime was committed on Ft. Missoula military reservation, alleged to be a place under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
Those dissimilarities do not occlude the apparent practice of Norris, with the acquiescence of or at least without objection from Lynn, an admitted prostitute, to lure young women to his motel apartment to ply them with alcohol or drugs and thereby accomplish his unlawful purposes upon them. Clearly in Montana, evidence of other crimes is admissible when proof is shown or similarity, nearness of time, identity, and tendency to establish a common scheme or plan of the crime charged. State v. Just, supra; State v. Jenson (1969), 153 Mont. 233, 455 P.2d 63; State v. Tully (1960), 148 Mont. 166, 418 P.2d 549. REBUTTAL TESTIMONY
The checks involved in Exhibit No. 12 were written from the period of January 25, 1972 through June 31, 1972, and during the time when Mrs. Skinner had twice been brought before the district court to be arraigned on the first two Informations. The individual checks contained in the exhibit tend to establish a common scheme, plan or system similar to and closely connected with and not too remote from the ones charged in the Informations, tending to prove the offenses charged. A similar fact situation existed in State v. Tully, 148 Mont. 166, 418 P.2d 549. The trial court based its decision to admit Exhibit No. 12 into evidence upon the authority of Tully and correctly so. Defendant's next issue on appeal contends she was prejudiced during the course of cross-examination by the State, attempting to further identify the checks contained in Exhibit No. 12, by requiring defendant on cross-examination to either continually seek refuge in the Fifth Amendment or run the risk of self-incrimination.
"The general rule is that evidence of crimes other than the one for which a defendant is on trial is not admissible, but to this rule there are exceptions * * *." State v. Tully, 148 Mont. 166, 168, 418 P.2d 549; State v. Hollowell, 79 Mont. 343, 256 P. 380. "One exception to the general rule is where the evidence of other crimes tends to establish a common scheme, plan or system and where such other crimes are similar to, closely connected with and not too remote from the one charged, and also where they are so related that proof of one tends to establish the other."
In fact whatever prejudice that might have occurred to the defendant came from the lips of the defendant himself. State v. Tully, 148 Mont. 166, 170, 418 P.2d 549 (1966). We can see no prejudice so far as the state's actions are concerned.