You are here: / / EVIDENCE OF PRIOR UNCHARGED SEXUAL OFFENSES WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX,...
,

EVIDENCE OF PRIOR UNCHARGED SEXUAL OFFENSES WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX, HEARSAY EVIDENCE OF VICTIM’S DISCLOSURE TWO AND A HALF YEARS AFTER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS A PROMPT OUTCRY, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing County Court, determined detailed evidence of prior uncharged sexual offenses was not admissible under Molineux. The defendant was charged with criminal sexual act alleging defendant asked a six or seven year old boy to perform oral sex on him. The People presented in their direct case the testimony of two female relatives of the defendant alleging sexual offenses occurring more than seven years before the victim’s disclosure in the instant case. County Court also erroneously allowed hearsay about the victim’s disclosure, two and a half years after the alleged incident, under the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule:

The female relatives specifically testified to repeated instances of oral sex, vaginal sex and digital penetration by defendant, and one of the female relatives stated that defendant forced her and the other female relative to perform sexual acts upon each other as he watched. Contrary to County Court’s conclusion, such detailed testimony was not necessary to complete the narrative as to how and why the victim’s disclosure occurred … . Additionally, the prior uncharged acts did not bear a sufficient similarity to the incident underlying the charged crimes so as to constitute, as the People argued, a common scheme or plan or demonstrate defendant’s intent or motive … . Accordingly, as the People failed to establish that the proffered evidence was probative of a material issue other than defendant’s criminal propensity, County Court erred in permitting such evidence … . Moreover, even if the proffered evidence were relevant to some nonpropensity purpose, County Court erroneously determined that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect … . People v Saxe, 2019 NY Slip Op 05345, Third Dept 7-3-19

 

You might also like
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF INJURED BY CO-WORKER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE GROSSLY NEGLIGENT AND THEREFORE NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, ALSO A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER CONDONED DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS, PLAINTIFF’S SUIT NOT PRECLUDED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW.
NEW LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT WHEN THE CLAIM WAS BEING RECONSIDERED SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED, CLAIMS MAY NO LONGER BE DENIED ON THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE STRESS EXPERIENCED BY CLAIMANT IS NOT GREATER THAN THAT WHICH USUALLY OCCURS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT, POLICE OFFICER CLAIMED ANXIETY AND PHOBIAS RELATED TO THE SIGHT OF BLOOD (THIRD DEPT).
“NO TRESPASSING” AND “PRIVATE PROPERTY” SIGNS WERE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY WHERE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS PARKED; THEREFORE THE DEPUTY WHO WALKED UP THE DRIVEWAY TO EXAMINE DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE CONDUCTED AN ILLEGAL, WARRANTLESS SEARCH; THE VEHICLE, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS AND THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO SUBSEQUENT SEARCH WARRANTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN A FATAL ACCIDENT AND THE DRIVER HAD FLED THE SCENE (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Expungement Explained
IT CONSULTANT WAS EMPLOYEE.
THE SANCTION THAT PETITIONER BE CONFINED TO A SPECIAL HOUSING UNIT (SHU), NOW KNOWN AS SEGRETATED CONFINEMENT, FOR 730 DAYS VIOLATED THE HUMANE ALTERNATIVES TO LONG-TERM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT ACT (HALT ACT); THE CORRECTION LAW LIMITS SUCH CONFINEMENT TO 15 CONSECUTIVE DAYS (THIRD DEPT).
PARALEGAL IN SMALL LAW OFFICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING ON WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT WAS, OR SHOULD HAVE... FATHER, WHO DID NOT SUBMIT A PETITION FOR CUSTODY, WAS PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING...