for here the State must prove not merely the assault but also that it was made with a certain intent. Hence, since the accused's purpose is at issue, proof of other similar offenses is independently relevant. Stone v. State, 162 Ark. 154, 258 S. W. 116; Hearn v. State, 206 Ark. 206, 174 S. W. 2d 452; Gerlach v. State, 217 Ark. 102, 229 S. W. 2d 37; Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.), § 357.
On the other hand, the reception of proof of recent similar offenses is prejudicial error when the evidence has no true relation to the issue of intent. In two of our cases the charge was theft of horses, and the State was allowed to prove closely contemporaneous thefts of saddles or bridles. Both convictions were reversed and sent back for a new trial. Dove v. State, 37 Ark. 261; Endaily v. State, 39 Ark. 278. See also Mays v. State, 163 Ark. 232, 259 S. W. 398; Yelvington v. State, 169 Ark. 359, 275 S. W. 701. In Morris v. State, 165 Ark. 452, 264 S. W. 970, a conviction for assault with intent to kill was reversed because the State had been allowed to prove prior offenses by the accused, the State's theory being that these offenses tended to show the accused's motive in shooting at police officers. Judge Frank Smith put his finger on the point when he said: "There was no question about the motive of appellant in shooting at the officers."
Thus our cases very plainly support the commonsense conclusion that proof of other offenses is competent when it actually sheds light on the defendant's intent; otherwise it must be excluded. In the case at bar it seems to us idle to contend that there was any real question about Alford's intent, concerning which the jury needed further enlightenment. See Wigmore, § 357. If Alford overpowered his victim and ravished her, it is a quibble to contend that perhaps he intended something other than rape. The jury's problem was to determine whether the acts described by the prosecutrix took place; if so, their motivation is not open to doubt. The earlier attack upon Mrs. Austin could have no conceivable pertinence except to brand Alford as a criminal, which is just what the State is not allowed to do. Williams v.
