You are here: / / EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY...
,

EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMITTED.

The Court of Appeals determined the admission of evidence of an assault on the same victim (A.H.) a week before the charged assault was not error. The defendant acknowledged the evidence was relevant but argued the evidence should have been summarized because it was unduly prejudicial to allow the jury to hear the details:

We cannot say that both defects necessary for reversible error are present in defendant's case, namely, that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to limit A.H.'s testimony and that such error substantially prejudiced the defendant so as to foreclose a determination of harmlessness. … A.H.'s testimony concerned the same parties, and served the nonpropensity purpose of directly explaining her relationship with the defendant and his motive. This is far from a case where “the jury did not require a recital of such a prologue to understand fully what had taken place in the defendant's encounters with [the victim]” … . In the same vein, testimony that the defendant previously attacked A.H. would not have led the jury to marginalize, relegate to the background, or ignore the grievous nature of the New York City assault, which was characterized by physical violence and several failed attempts at immolation.

Under these circumstances, we perceive no error that requires a reversal of defendant's conviction. People v Frankline, 2016 NY Slip Op 04441, CtApp 6-9-16

CRIMINAL LAW (EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMITTED)/EVIDENCE (EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMITTED/MOLINEUX EVIDENCE (EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMITTED)/UNCHARGED CRIMES (EVIDENCE OF A SIMILAR UNCHARGED CRIME AGAINST THE SAME VICTIM PROPERLY ADMITTED)

You might also like
“Ensuing Loss” Exception to Coverage Exclusion for Water Damage Did Not Apply to Water Damage Stemming from an “Explosion” of a Water Main Outside Plaintiffs’ Home—The “Ensuing Loss” Exception in the Policy Referred Only to Water Damage which Stemmed from a Covered Peril (Like a Fire)
REQUIREMENT THAT INDIAN RETAILERS COLLECT AND REMIT TAXES ON CIGARETTES SOLD TO NON-INDIAN CONSUMERS DOES NOT VIOLATE INDIAN LAW OR THE BUFFALO CREEK TREATY OF 1842 (CT APP).
PLAINTIFF TRUSTEE’S RESIDENCE IS CALIFORNIA AND THE CAUSES OF ACTION IN THIS RESIDENTIAL-MORTGAGE-BACKED-SECURITIES BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION THEREFORE ACCRUED IN CALIFORNIA; UNDER NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE, CPLR 202, THE ACTIONS MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY ARE UNTIMELY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW (CT APP).
Resentencing to a Sentence Technically Different from the Sentence Agreed to in a Plea Bargain Okay—Resentence Comported With Defendant’s Reasonable Expectations
Language of Collective Bargaining Agreements Entitled Retirees to the Same Health Benefits As Were In Effect at the Time of Retirement
IN THIS MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS, UNFAIR COMPETITION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT ACTION, DAMAGES CANNOT BE MEASURED BY THE DEVELOPMENT COSTS AVOIDED BY THE COMPANY WHICH MISAPPROPRIATED THE TRADE SECRETS (CT APP).
Statute Which Elevates Criminal Possession of a Weapon to a C Felony, Even When Possession is in the Home, Does Not Violate the Second Amendment
A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ALSO RULED THE CANINE SNIFF WAS A SEARCH, THE APPELLATE DIVISION WENT ON TO APPLY THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD AND FOUND THAT STANDARD HAD BEEN MET BY THE FACTS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RULE ADVERSELY TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE STANDARD BECAUSE COUNTY COURT HAD NOT RULED ON THAT ISSUE (COUNTY COURT HELD THE SNIFF WAS NOT A SEARCH); THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO COUNTY COURT FOR RULINGS ON THE STANDARD FOR A SNIFF SEARCH (CT APP). ​

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

MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; DEFENDANT DID... STANDARD FOR THE NEED FOR A HEARING TO DETERMINE CUSTODY CLARIFIED; HERE SUPREME...