You are here: / / Evidence of a Prior Crime Not Admissible to Prove Intent and Not Admissible...
,

Evidence of a Prior Crime Not Admissible to Prove Intent and Not Admissible As Part of a Common Scheme or Plan/Conviction Reversed

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a dissent, determined the admission of evidence of an uncharged crime to demonstrate defendant’s intent required reversal because (1) the proof was not ambiguous about defendant’s intent, and (2) the prior crime was not so similar to the charged crime that it proved the existence of a common scheme or plan.  Defendant was charged with theft of a ring from a man named Cushman.  Extensive proof that defendant had previously stolen jewelry from another person was allowed:

Where intent is at issue but cannot be readily inferred from the commission of the act itself, evidence of prior criminal acts may be used to establish it … . Where, however, proof of the act demonstrates that the defendant acted with the requisite state of mind, Molineux evidence should not be admitted … . Here, proof of defendant’s actions is sufficient to demonstrate that he acted with the requisite intent. Spraying someone in the face with mace, grabbing the person’s ring and running can only indicate an intent to steal the ring. If the jury believed Cushman’s testimony, then it would have to infer that defendant intended to steal the ring from him.   * * *

Nor was [the prior crime evidence] admissible under the common plan or scheme exception, which requires that “there exist[] a single inseparable plan encompassing both the charged and the uncharged crimes” … . “There must be such a concurrence of common features that the various acts are naturally to be explained as caused by a general plan of which they are the individual manifestations'” …. Indeed, the Court of Appeals noted that “courts have been particularly cautious in permitting proof of uncharged criminal acts to establish a common scheme or plan” … . Evidence that is merely indicative of a modus operandi is not sufficient. “[A] modus operandi alone is not a common scheme; it is only a repetitive pattern” … . What is generally required is evidence of “uncharged crimes committed in order to effect the primary crime for which the accused has been indicted” … . People v DeGerolamo, 2014 NY Slip Op 02698, 1st Dept 4-17-14

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT THE POLICE WERE AWARE THE VAN THEY STOPPED HAD REPORTEDLY BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO PRIOR INCIDENTS—(1) A ROAD RAGE SHOOTING AND (2) NEARLY RUNNING OVER A TRAFFIC AGENT ABOUT TO ISSUE A PARKING TICKET—PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION SUPPORTING THE LEVEL THREE TRAFFIC STOP, DESPITE THE FACT THE POLICE DID NOT KNOW WHO WAS DRIVING THE VAN DURING THE PRIOR INCIDENTS (FIRST DEPT). ​
“Findings” of Wrong-Doing in Bear Stearns’ Settlement Agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Stock Exchange Did Not Constitute an “Adjudication” of Wrong-Doing Which Would Support the Insurer’s Affirmative Defense Based Upon the “Dishonest Acts Exclusion” in the Professional Liability Insurance Policy—However, the Insurer’s Affirmative Defense Based Upon the Public Policy Precluding Coverage for Intentional Harm to Others Should Not Have Been Dismissed
TWO ZONING VIOLATION SUMMONSES ADDRESSING THE SAME USE OF THE PROPERTY WERE NOT DUPLICATIVE; THEREFORE THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS’ FAILURE TO APPEAL THE DISMISSAL OF THE FIRST SUMMONS DID NOT PRECLUDE THE SECOND (FIRST DEPT).
RARE CASE IN WHICH A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFF AND THE CITY MAY RENDER THE CITY LIABLE FOR A DELAYED RESPONSE TO A 911 CALL; BECAUSE THE DELAY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE RESULT OF A DELIBERATE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY MAY NOT APPLY (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE RECKLESS STANDARD APPLIED IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-POLICE CAR ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).
THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST DEPT).
FATHER DEPRIVED OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO ASSIGNED COUNSEL, REVERSAL REQUIRED.
DEFENDANTS DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Complaint Stated Causes of Action for a Constructive Trust and Quantum Meru... Court Properly Allowed Defendant to Proceed Pro Se Three Weeks Into His Murder...