A trial judge is not required to give a 'balancing direction' that acquittals on some counts would undermine the State's tendency case on other counts, at least where the tendency case is framed in qualified terms (sexual interest in 'some' patients, willingness to act 'when circumstances permitted'). An acquittal does not, as a matter of fact or logic, necessarily detract from the force of a tendency case so framed. The Crofts balancing direction rationale does not apply by analogy to propensity evidence directions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.