Fact that Defendant Was Seen With a .25 Caliber Handgun Two and a Half Months Before Charged Shooting Allowed In Evidence to Prove “Identity”
The defendant was convicted of shooting the victim with a .25 caliber handgun. Under Molineux, the prosecution was allowed to present evidence that the defendant, two and a half months before, was seen brandishing a .25 caliber handgun. The trial court determined this “prior crime” evidence was admissible to prove the identity of the shooter. The Third Department affirmed with a strong dissent. The quotation below, which is from the dissent, outlines one of the elements of a Molineux analysis of prior-crime evidence to prove identity:
[THE FOLLOWING QUOTATION IS FROM THE DISSENT]
The mere fact that defendant was allegedly seen with a .25 caliber weapon on an occasion over two months prior to the crime does not reveal any unique and distinctive modus operandi, nor a “distinctive repetitive pattern” … . The only behavior described was the act of pulling out a gun – there is nothing unique or distinctive about this act, standing alone – and the weapon was not fired during the alleged earlier incident. Defendant’s mere presence in the same place twice is certainly not unusual, as other people were also present on both occasions. There was simply no evidence that might be considered “‘so unique that the mere proof that . . . defendant had committed a similar act would be highly probative of the fact that he committed the one charged'” … . People v Myers, 104004, 3rd Dept, 4-25-13