In appellant’s trial for burglary, indecent exposure, and annoying a child, the trial court properly admitted the testimony of two prior victims of indecent exposures by appellant. The testimony was properly admitted to prove identity, as appellant claimed that he was the victim of mistaken identity. Prosecution for burglary was not prohibited because of the more specific statute of felony indecent exposure inside an inhabited dwelling. An indispensable element of burglary is entry with a specific intent, and residential indecent exposure only requires a previous unauthorized entry, not entry with an intent to commit a felony. Accordingly, every residential indecent exposure is not necessarily a burglary.