(concurring in the result):
149 I agree that the pretrial severance motion should have been granted and that Hildreth is entitled to a new trial. Because my analysis with respect to the new trial issue is different than that of the lead opinion, I write separately.
1 50 I agree with the lead opinion that the offenses related to C.W. were not connected to or part of a common scheme or plan with the charges related to the other women. Thus, I also agree that because the charges are not connected or part of a common scheme, our error analysis is complete and we need not consider prejudice in connection with that question, see generally Utah Code Ann. § 77-8a-1(4)(a) (2008) (requiring the court to hold separate trials if joinder will prejudice the prosecution or the defense will be prejudiced, even if joinder would otherwise be permissible under the statute); State v. Balfour, 2008 UT App 410, ¶¶ 30-31 & n. 11, 198 P.3d 471 (holding, without considering prejudice, that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to sever where there was no connection between or common scheme or plan involving the charges); State v. Scales, 946 P.2d 377, 385 (Utah Ct.App.1997) ("If we determine that the offenses either were connected together in their commission or were alleged to be part of a common scheme or plan, we must then examine whether the trial court complied with subsection [77-8a-11(4)(a).").
151 However, this case comes to us after the charges were improperly joined at trial and Hildreth was convicted only on those charges arising out of the allegations of C.W. Thus, in determining whether a new trial is warranted, we must decide whether the trial court's erroneous decision to try the charges together was harmless or prejudicial See State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86, ¶ 34, 55 P.3d 573 ("Any error in denying severance will be deemed harmless unless [the] defendant can 'establish a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome if the court had granted a severance." (quoting State v. Ellis, 748 P.2d 188, 190 (Utah 1987))). Hildreth argues that he was prejudiced because the testimony of B.B., MW., and AW. negatively impacted the jury's view of the evidence relating to C.W.'s allegations. However, if the testimo*457ny of the other women would have been admitted anyway, even if the charges related to C.W. had been severed from the others, Hildreth's argument fails. Thus, to assess Hildreth's claim of prejudice, I engage in virtually the same analysis as required under subsection T77-Sa-l(d)(a) of the severance statute, see Utah Code Ann. § 77-8a-1(4)(a). This analysis focuses on whether the testimony related to the other charges would have been admissible as other bad acts under rule 404(b) of the Utah Rule of Evidence in a trial limited to the offenses related to C.W.
52 In implementing that three-part analysis, see supra 1 40, I agree with the majority that the evidence was offered for proper purposes and was relevant. With respect to the third part of the 404(b) analysis, whether the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by unfair prejudice under rule 403, I first note that there is little indication in the record that the trial court considered the applicable factors identified in State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291, 295-96 (Utah 1988), see swpro 148, let alone that it "scrupulously examined" them, see State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶ 16, 6 P.3d 1120 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, I undertake that analysis in the first instance on appeal to evaluate whether the error here was prejudicial. In weighing those factors, I agree that B.B. and A.W.'s testimony would have been excluded but conclude that M.W.'s testimony would have been admitted under rule 404(b).
153 Starting with the application of the Shickles factors to the testimony of MW., the fact that she reported her concerns about Hildreth on a website immediately after her second visit bolsters the strength of her allegations, although apparently not enough to convinee the jury. I would resolve this Shickles factor as weighing slightly in favor of the State. Hildreth's touching of C.W.'s vaginal area is more disturbing than M.W.'s report that Hildreth touched her breast during the first visit and that he touched her buttocks during the second visit. However, both with C.W. and with MW., Hildreth used the chiropractic setting to touch body parts traditionally considered relevant to sexual gratification, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404 (2008) (providing that a person is guilty of forcible sexual abuse if the victim is fourteen or older and "the actor touches the anus, buttocks, or any part of the genitals of another, or touches the breast of a female," under certain defined cireumstances). Therefore, I would weigh the similarity factor as balane-ing somewhat in favor of the State on this issue. Because M.W. saw Hildreth in October of 2006, seven months prior to his first touching of C.W.'s vagina, I would evaluate the temporal proximity as neutral. As to the fourth and fifth factors, I agree with the lead opinion that there was a need for the evidence and that alternative evidence was not available. Last, because C.W.'s allegations are more shocking than M.W.'s, I conclude that M.W.'s testimony would not arouse the jury to overmastering hostility. On balance, I conclude that M.W. would have been permitted to testify under rule 404(b) in a trial limited to the charges related to C.W.'s allegations.
1 54 With respect to B.B., I agree with the majority that her allegations were not strong. B.B. visited Hildreth thirty to forty times after the alleged first incident and four or five times after the second, and did not make a complaint about his conduct until she heard that he had been arrested. Indeed, these facts may have affected the jury's decision to acquit Hildreth on these charges. I also agree that the behavior described by C.W. was much more intrusive than that described by B.B. This is particularly evident with respect to the first incident, where although Hildreth pushed B.B.'s pants down to where her pubic hair was barely showing, he touched her only above her panties in the pubic bone area. The second incident, where Hildreth allegedly touched B.B.'s breast during a rib cage adjustment, is also not as disturbing as Hildreth's admitted examination and touching of C.W.'s vagina. Although, like the testimony of MW., it de-seribes the use of a medical setting to obtain access to a part of the body traditionally associated with sexual gratification, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404, the alleged touching was fleeting. Therefore, I would weigh the Shickles similarity factor as neutral with respect to the second incident but against the State as to the first. Further, although the *458first incident allegedly happened in the summer of 2006, M.W. claimed that the second incident occurred in March 2007, only two months before Hildreth's first examination of C.W.'s vagina in May 2007. Consequently, I would resolve the temporal proximity issue in favor of the State on the second incident, but against the State on the first. Because I conclude that M.W.'s testimony should have been admitted, I would resolve the Shickles factors concerning the need for the evidence and the availability of alternative evidence against the State. Finally, where the allegations of C.W. were much more shocking, I conclude that B.B.'s allegation that Hildreth touched her breast under her gown during the second incident would not rouse the jury to overmastering hostility. Based on my analysis of the proper balance of the Shickles factors under the cireumstances, I conclude that B.B.'s testimony would not have been admissible under rule 404(b).
T55 AW. reported her concerns to her mother immediately after her only appointment with Hildreth, but she did not contact the authorities because Hildreth was a family friend and AW.'s conversation with her mother convinced A.W. that she must have been mistaken about Hildreth's intentions. However, this evidence was not strong enough to convince the jury to convict Hil-dreth on this charge. On balance, I would resolve this Shickles factor as not weighing in favor of either party. AW.'s allegation that Hildreth used his position as her chiropractor to touch her labia is similar to, although not as intrusive as, C.W.'s allegation that Hildreth used his medical status to insert his finger into her vagina and, therefore, weighs in favor of the State. Because A.W. saw Hildreth in the spring of 2004, three years before the first incident involving C.W., the interval of time between the two incidents weighs against the State. Likewise, M.W.'s testimony, which I conclude would be admitted, could be used for the same proper purposes as the testimony of the other aceus-ers, thereby reducing the need to also introduce A.W.'s testimony. Moreover, there is danger that A.W.'s testimony might create hostility with the jury, even though her allegations do not actually involve digital penetration. C.W. was an adult woman who allowed her own children to see Hildreth professionally after the acts of which she complains. Although Hildreth was C.W.'s employer, their relationship had some unusual components, which included visits by Hil-dreth to C.W.'s home, as well as his provision of car maintenance and other support. In contrast, A.W. was a young woman whose mother made her appointment with Hildreth and who knew him as a trusted family friend. Considering all of the Shickles factors in the context of this case, I would conclude that A.W.'s testimony would not have been admitted under rule 404(b).
156 Although my application of the rule 403 analysis convinces me that M.W. would have been permitted to testify in a separate trial on the charges related to C.W., I agree with the lead opinion that Hildreth has established a "'reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome if the court had granted a severance." " See State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86, ¶ 34, 55 P.3d 573 (quoting State v. Ellis, 748 P.2d 188, 190 (Utah 1987)). This case presented a contest of credibility between Hildreth and C.W. In addition, C.W.'s conduct in allowing her chiropractor to apply vaginal gel is highly unusual; the nature of the relationship between C.W. and Hildreth was uncertain; and C.W. continued to see Hildreth as a patient after the first incident, allowing him to apply gel to her vagina again. These and other cireumstances of this case convince me that there is a reasonable likelihood that the result might have been different absent the testimony from B.B. and A.W., even assuming M.W. was permitted to testify. Consequently, I coneur that Hil-dreth is entitled to a new trial.