4.21. Evidence of Crimes and Wrongs (Molineux) Evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts committed by a person is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion or had a propensity to engage in a wrongful act or acts. This evidence may be admissible when it is more probative than prejudicial to prove, for example: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or conduct that is inextricably interwoven with the charged acts; or to provide necessary background information or explanation; or to complete the narrative of the subject event or matter. (2) In a criminal proceeding, where the defendant interposes a defense, the People on rebuttal may prove the of other crimes or wrongs defendant’s commission when such crimes or wrongs are relevant and probative to disprove the defense. Note Subdivision (1). This rule sets forth what is generally known as the rule, after the seminal case of (168 NY 264 [1901]). Molineux People v Molineux The first sentence sets forth the general rule, applicable in both civil and criminal proceedings, that when evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts committed by a person is offered for the purpose of raising an inference that the person is likely to have committed the crime charged or the act in issue, the evidence is inadmissible. (Molineux, 168 NY at 291-293; 21 People v Morris, of uncharged crimes is inadmissible where its NY3d 588, 594 [2013] [“(E)vidence purpose is only to show a bad character or propensity defendant’s towards crime”]; 20 NY3d People v Bradley, 128, 135 [2012] [“Without some better developed theory of evidence of a stabbing incident more than 10 years before relevance,” defendant for what (it) fatally stabbed her estranged boyfriend was “resonant solely seemed to disclose about violent propensity and the manner of its defendant’s 55 NY2d 206, 210-211 general rule Matter of Brandon, expression”]; [1982] [“A of evidence, applicable in both civil and criminal cases, is that it is improper to
4.21. Evidence of Crimes and Wrongs (Molineux) Evidence of crimes, wrongs, or other acts committed by a person is not admissible to prove that the person acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion or had a propensity to engage in a wrongful act or acts. This evidence may be admissible when it is more probative than prejudicial to prove, for example: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident, or conduct that is inextricably interwoven with the charged acts; or to provide necessary background information or explanation; or to complete the narrative of the subject event or matter. (2) In a criminal proceeding, where the defendant interposes a defense, the People on rebuttal may prove the defendant’s commission of other crimes or wrongs when such crimes or wrongs are relevant and probative to disprove the defense. Note Subdivision (1). This rule sets forth what is generally known as the Molineux rule, after the seminal case of People v Molineux (168 NY 264 [1901]). The first sentence sets forth the general rule, applicable in both civil and criminal proceedings, that when evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts committed by a person is offered for the purpose of raising an inference that the person is likely to have committed the crime charged or the act in issue, the evidence is inadmissible. (Molineux, 168 NY at 291-293; People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 594 [2013] [“(E)vidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible where its purpose is only to show a defendant’s bad character or propensity towards crime”]; People v Bradley, 20 NY3d 128, 135 [2012] [“Without some better developed theory of relevance,” evidence of a stabbing incident more than 10 years before defendant fatally stabbed her estranged boyfriend was “resonant solely for what (it) seemed to disclose about defendant’s violent propensity and the manner of its expression”]; Matter of Brandon, 55 NY2d 206, 210-211 [1982] [“A general rule of evidence, applicable in both civil and criminal cases, is that it is improper to
4.21_EVIDENCE%20OF%20CRIMES%20(MOLINEUX).docx