In this child sexual assault case, the trial court did not err by admitting Rule 404(b) evidence regarding a sexual assault perpetrated by the defendant on another child, Katy. The case being tried involved vaginal intercourse and other acts with a child victim. The 404(b) evidence involved in anal intercourse with Katy. The State offered Katy’s testimony to establish that the defendant had a common scheme or plan to commit assaults on young females. The trial court allowed the evidence for that purpose. On appeal, the court rejected the defendant’s argument that the acts were too dissimilar, noting: both the victim and Katy are the same sex; the defendant allegedly had forcible intercourse with both victims; the assaults took place in the early morning; and in both incidents, the defendant was a guest in the homes where the children were staying, he entered their bedrooms after midnight, and later bribed them for their silence. The court went on to hold that the evidence was admissible under Rule 403, rejecting the defendant’s argument that testimony of anal intercourse of a child by an adult improperly inflamed the jury.