Molineux rule in New York

2026Although evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is not admissible to show a defendant's predisposition to criminal conduct ( see People v Molineux , 168 NY 264, 291-293), such evidence may be admissible if it is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged or because of some recognized exception to the Molineux rule, such as (1) intent, (2) motive, (3) knowledge, (4) common scheme or plan, or (5) identity of the defendant ( see People v Telfair , 41 NY3d 107, 114; People v Alvino , 71 NY2d 233, 241).

2026Although evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is not admissible to show a defendant's predisposition to criminal conduct ( see People v Molineux , 168 NY 264, 291-293), such evidence may be admissible if it is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged or because of some recognized exception to the Molineux rule, such as (1) intent, (2) motive, (3) knowledge, (4) common scheme or plan, or (5) identity of the defendant ( see People v Telfair , 41 NY3d 107, 114; People v Alvino , 71 NY2d 233, 241).

2026Although evidence of prior crimes or bad acts is not admissible to show a defendant's predisposition to criminal conduct ( see People v Molineux , 168 NY 264, 291-293), such evidence may be admissible if it is relevant to prove an element of the crime charged or because of some recognized exception to the Molineux rule, such as (1) intent, (2) motive, (3) knowledge, (4) common scheme or plan, or (5) identity of the defendant ( see People v Telfair , 41 NY3d 107, 114; People v Alvino , 71 NY2d 233, 241).

2026This follows from our longstanding Molineux rule, which provides that "evidence of a defendant's uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged" ( People v Cass , 18 NY3d 553, 559 [2012]; see People v Molineux ( 168 NY 264 [1901]).

2026This follows from our longstanding Molineux rule, which provides that "evidence of a defendant's uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged" ( People v Cass , 18 NY3d 553, 559 [2012]; see People v Molineux ( 168 NY 264 [1901]).

2026As a result, we need not address the second step of the Molineux analysis, since the People failed to establish at the first step that the evidence fell under an exception to the Molineux rule ( see People v Cass , 18 NY3d 553, 559 [2012]).

2025He also requests a Molineux hearing vis-à-vis any prior conviction or uncharged crime(s) which could be used adversely against him ( see People v Molineux , 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]; People v Ventimiglia , 52 NY2d 350, 359-360 [1981]).

2025He also requests a Molineux hearing vis-à-vis any prior conviction or uncharged crime(s) which could be used adversely against him ( see People v Molineux , 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]; People v Ventimiglia , 52 NY2d 350, 359-360 [1981]).

2024Limiting instructions are provided because "[i]t is axiomatic that propensity evidence invites a jury to misfocus, if not base its verdict, on a defendant's prior crimes rather than on the evidence—or lack of evidence—relating to the case before it" ( People v Rojas , 97 NY2d 32, 36-37 [2001]; see People v Resek , 3 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]; People v Allweiss , 48 NY2d 40, 46 [1979] [ Molineux rule "based on policy and not on logic"]).

2024Limiting instructions are provided because "[i]t is axiomatic that propensity evidence invites a jury to misfocus, if not base its verdict, on a defendant's prior crimes rather than on the evidence—or lack of evidence—relating to the case before it" ( People v Rojas , 97 NY2d 32, 36-37 [2001]; see People v Resek , 3 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]; People v Allweiss , 48 NY2d 40, 46 [1979] [ Molineux rule "based on policy and not on logic"]).

2026A Molineux error may be found harmless only if both "the proof of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming" and "there is no significant probability . . . that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error" ( People v Arafet , 13 NY3d 460, 467 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). [*7]That is not the case here.

2026A Molineux error may be found harmless only if both "the proof of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming" and "there is no significant probability . . . that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error" ( People v Arafet , 13 NY3d 460, 467 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). [*7]That is not the case here.

2023With regard to the intent exception, "[w]hen [a] defendant's criminal intent cannot be inferred from the commission of the act or when [a] defendant's intent or mental state in doing the act is placed in issue, . . . proof of other [bad acts] may be admissible under the intent exception to the Molineux rule" ( People v Ingram , 71 NY2d 474, 479 [1988]; see People v Alvino , 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]).

2023With regard to the intent exception, "[w]hen [a] defendant's criminal intent cannot be inferred from the commission of the act or when [a] defendant's intent or mental state in doing the act is placed in issue, . . . proof of other [bad acts] may be admissible under the intent exception to the Molineux rule" ( People v Ingram , 71 NY2d 474, 479 [1988]; see People v Alvino , 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]).

2024Limiting instructions are provided because "[i]t is axiomatic that propensity evidence invites a jury to misfocus, if not base its verdict, on a defendant's prior crimes rather than on the evidence—or lack of evidence—relating to the case before it" ( People v Rojas , 97 NY2d 32, 36-37 [2001]; see People v Resek , 3 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]; People v Allweiss , 48 NY2d 40, 46 [1979] [ Molineux rule "based on policy and not on logic"]).

2024Limiting instructions are provided because "[i]t is axiomatic that propensity evidence invites a jury to misfocus, if not base its verdict, on a defendant's prior crimes rather than on the evidence—or lack of evidence—relating to the case before it" ( People v Rojas , 97 NY2d 32, 36-37 [2001]; see People v Resek , 3 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]; People v Allweiss , 48 NY2d 40, 46 [1979] [ Molineux rule "based on policy and not on logic"]).

2023Likewise, the prior gun possession incidents here are essentially evidence of prior wrongdoing that “tended to show only that ‘if defendant did it once . . . he would do it again’ ” (People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 856, 858 [1996]; Alvino, 71 NY2d at 242 [same]; People v Katz, 209 NY 311, 328 [1913] [“proof showing that A. shot B. at one time and place throws no light upon the charge that A. poisoned C. at another time and place”]; Hudy, 73 NY2d at 56 [“(This) is precisely th(e) type of result that the Molineux rule was adopted to prevent”]). 2 The dissent’s assertion that today’s ruling “destabilize

2023Likewise, the prior gun possession incidents here are essentially evidence of prior wrongdoing that “tended to show only that ‘if defendant did it once . . . he would do it again’ ” (People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 856, 858 [1996]; Alvino, 71 NY2d at 242 [same]; People v Katz, 209 NY 311, 328 [1913] [“proof showing that A. shot B. at one time and place throws no light upon the charge that A. poisoned C. at another time and place”]; Hudy, 73 NY2d at 56 [“(This) is precisely th(e) type of result that the Molineux rule was adopted to prevent”]). 2 The dissent’s assertion that today’s ruling “destabilize

2025"Under the so-called 'identity' or 'modus operandi' exception to the Molineux rule, evidence of an uncharged crime that has distinctive characteristics in common with the crime for which the defendant is on trial may be admissible unless the defendant's identity as the person who committed the act in question is conclusively established by other evidence" ( People v Agina , 18 NY3d 600, 601-602 [2012]).

2025"Under the so-called 'identity' or 'modus operandi' exception to the Molineux rule, evidence of an uncharged crime that has distinctive characteristics in common with the crime for which the defendant is on trial may be admissible unless the defendant's identity as the person who committed the act in question is conclusively established by other evidence" ( People v Agina , 18 NY3d 600, 601-602 [2012]).

2026Evidence of the prior flexible hosing gas-delivery system constitutes evidence of a prior bad act subject to Molineux analysis and should have been analyzed as such ( see generally People v Frumusa , 29 NY3d 364, 369-370 [2017]).

2024This Court decided People v Molineux ( 168 NY 264 [1901]) more than a century ago, “but its foundation remains unchanged: a criminal case should be tried on the facts and not on the basis of a defendant’s propensity to commit the crime charged” (People v Rojas, 97 NY2d 32, 36 [2001]; see People v Cass, 18 NY3d 553, 559 [2012]). “ ‘[T]he familiar Molineux rule states that evidence of a defendant’s uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant’s propensity to comm

2026A Molineux error may be found harmless only if both "the proof of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming" and "there is no significant probability . . . that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error" ( People v Arafet , 13 NY3d 460, 467 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). [*7]That is not the case here.

2026A Molineux error may be found harmless only if both "the proof of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, is overwhelming" and "there is no significant probability . . . that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had it not been for the error" ( People v Arafet , 13 NY3d 460, 467 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]). [*7]That is not the case here.

2023If anything, comparing the note and the ultimate verdict indicates that the jurors applied the Molineux rule carefully and properly, and that requiring the jury to deliberate under the assumption that this was the first time defendant illegally transported weapons in this State was not necessary to “safeguard the rights of … defendant[] to a fair trial” (majority op at 12). 8 This Court has affirmed the admission of Molineux evidence based on trial courts’ limiting instructions in many prior cases (see e.g., People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660, 661 [2002] [any prejudice was ameliorated by “the trial c

2023If anything, comparing the note and the ultimate verdict indicates that the jurors applied the Molineux rule carefully and properly, and that requiring the jury to deliberate under the assumption that this was the first time defendant illegally transported weapons in this State was not necessary to “safeguard the rights of … defendant[] to a fair trial” (majority op at 12). 8 This Court has affirmed the admission of Molineux evidence based on trial courts’ limiting instructions in many prior cases (see e.g., People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660, 661 [2002] [any prejudice was ameliorated by “the trial c

2008In any event, the People have not demonstrated that the proffered concession would have failed to conclusively establish defendant’s identity so as to warrant introduction of evidence of the uncharged crime (People v Robinson, 68 NY2d 541, 548 [1986]; see People v Condon, 26 NY2d 139, 142 [1970] [identity exception to Molineux rule unavailable “where the identity of defendant is established by other evidence and is not truly in issue“]; People v Sanchez, 154 AD2d 15, 24 [1990] [repeated offers to concede identification, defendant to testify to sexual contact]; cf. People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233,

1987Where, as in this case, the defense of mistaken identity is raised, and the defendant seeks to impeach the testimony of the sole eyewitness to the crime, other crime evidence is admissible on the issue of identity pursuant to the Molineux rule (see, People v Molineux, supra; see also, People v Robinson, 68 NY2d 541, 548 ; People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241, 251 ; People v Condon, 26 NY2d 139, 142 ), so long as "the modus operandi is so unique as to make the evidence highly probative” (People v Robinson, supra, at 548 ; see also, People v Allweiss, 48 NY2d 40 ; People v Condon, supra at 144 ).

2014The identity exception to the Molineux rule “is used in limited circumstances, when the defendant employs some unique, unusual, or distinctive modus operandi in an uncharged crime that is relevant to proving his identity as the perpetrator of the crime charged” (People v Mateo, 93 NY2d 327, 332 [1999]).

2014The identity exception to the Molineux rule “is used in limited circumstances, when the defendant employs some unique, unusual, or distinctive modus operandi in an uncharged crime that is relevant to proving his identity as the perpetrator of the crime charged” (People v Mateo, 93 NY2d 327, 332 [1999]).

2024Under our well-settled Molineux rule (People v Molineux ( 168 NY 264 [1901]), “[e]vidence of a defendant’s prior bad acts may be admissible when it is relevant to a material issue in the case other than defendant’s criminal propensity” (People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16, 19 [2009]).

2024Under the well-settled Molineux rule, "[e]vidence of a defendant's prior bad acts may be admissible when it is relevant to a material issue in the case other than defendant's criminal propensity" ( People v Dorm , 12 NY3d 16, 19 [2009]), including when evidence is relevant to establish a defendant's motive or intent ( see id .).

2026Intent As the People concede, evidence of prior acts offered to prove intent may fail at step one of the Molineux analysis when intent is easily inferable ( see Leonard , 29 NY3d at 8 ).

2026Intent As the People concede, evidence of prior acts offered to prove intent may fail at step one of the Molineux analysis when intent is easily inferable ( see Leonard , 29 NY3d at 8 ).

2014Moreover, even assuming such evidence was subject to a Molineux analysis (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]), we would find such proof was “inextricably interwoven with the charged crime[ ], provide[d] necessary background or complete[d] a witness’s narrative” and was, therefore, properly admitted (People v Burnell, 89 AD3d 1118, 1120 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 922 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord People v Johnson, 106 AD3d 1272, 1274 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013]).

2014Moreover, even assuming such evidence was subject to a Molineux analysis (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]), we would find such proof was “inextricably interwoven with the charged crime[ ], provide[d] necessary background or complete[d] a witness’s narrative” and was, therefore, properly admitted (People v Burnell, 89 AD3d 1118, 1120 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 922 [2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; accord People v Johnson, 106 AD3d 1272, 1274 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1043 [2013]).

2023Likewise, the prior gun possession incidents here are essentially evidence of prior wrongdoing that “tended to show only that ‘if defendant did it once . . . he would do it again’ ” (People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 856, 858 [1996]; Alvino, 71 NY2d at 242 [same]; People v Katz, 209 NY 311, 328 [1913] [“proof showing that A. shot B. at one time and place throws no light upon the charge that A. poisoned C. at another time and place”]; Hudy, 73 NY2d at 56 [“(This) is precisely th(e) type of result that the Molineux rule was adopted to prevent”]). 2 The dissent’s assertion that today’s ruling “destabilize

2023Likewise, the prior gun possession incidents here are essentially evidence of prior wrongdoing that “tended to show only that ‘if defendant did it once . . . he would do it again’ ” (People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 856, 858 [1996]; Alvino, 71 NY2d at 242 [same]; People v Katz, 209 NY 311, 328 [1913] [“proof showing that A. shot B. at one time and place throws no light upon the charge that A. poisoned C. at another time and place”]; Hudy, 73 NY2d at 56 [“(This) is precisely th(e) type of result that the Molineux rule was adopted to prevent”]). 2 The dissent’s assertion that today’s ruling “destabilize

2024The Court of Appeals disagreed, however, and held that admitting evidence of that earlier incident "violated the [*12] Molineux rule," inasmuch as "[t]his was not a crime 'so unique that the mere proof that the defendant had committed a similar act would be highly probative of the fact that he committed the one charge'" ( id. , quoting People v Condon , 26 NY2d 139, 144 [1970]).

2024The Court of Appeals disagreed, however, and held that admitting evidence of that earlier incident "violated the [*12] Molineux rule," inasmuch as "[t]his was not a crime 'so unique that the mere proof that the defendant had committed a similar act would be highly probative of the fact that he committed the one charge'" ( id. , quoting People v Condon , 26 NY2d 139, 144 [1970]).

2024Limiting instructions are provided because "[i]t is axiomatic that propensity evidence invites a jury to misfocus, if not base its verdict, on a defendant's prior crimes rather than on the evidence—or lack of evidence—relating to the case before it" ( People v Rojas , 97 NY2d 32, 36-37 [2001]; see People v Resek , 3 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]; People v Allweiss , 48 NY2d 40, 46 [1979] [ Molineux rule "based on policy and not on logic"]).

2024Limiting instructions are provided because "[i]t is axiomatic that propensity evidence invites a jury to misfocus, if not base its verdict, on a defendant's prior crimes rather than on the evidence—or lack of evidence—relating to the case before it" ( People v Rojas , 97 NY2d 32, 36-37 [2001]; see People v Resek , 3 NY3d 385, 389 [2004]; People v Allweiss , 48 NY2d 40, 46 [1979] [ Molineux rule "based on policy and not on logic"]).

2025The enduring Molineux rule "states that evidence of a defendant's uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged" ( People v Denson , 26 NY3d 179, 185 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Molineux , 168 NY 264 [1901]).

2025The enduring Molineux rule "states that evidence of a defendant's uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate the defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged" ( People v Denson , 26 NY3d 179, 185 [2015] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Molineux , 168 NY 264 [1901]).

2024We also agree that such evidence falls under the recognized Molineux exception of evidence relating to identity, as defendant's vehicle was spotted at the scene and his Y-STR DNA was retrieved from a bottle found there ( see People v Smith , 157 AD3d 978 , 980 [3d Dept 2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1087 [2018]; People v McCommons , 143 AD3d 1150, 1153 [3d Dept 2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 999 [2017]; People v Royster , 107 AD3d 1298, 1301 [3d Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 958 [2013]).

2021"Courts must determine as a matter of law whether the evidence is relevant, material and admissible under a Molineux exception or some other basis; after this initial determination, admissibility turns on a case-specific discretionary balancing of probity versus prejudice" ( People v Westerling , 48 AD3d 965, 966 [2008] [citations omitted]; see [*3] People v Smith , 157 AD3d 978 , 979-980 [2018], lvs denied 31 NY3d 1087 [2018]; People v McCommons , 143 AD3d 1150, 1153 [2016], lvs denied 29 NY3d 999 , 1001 [2017]).

2013Of course, the identity exception to the Molineux rule “is used in limited circumstances, when the defendant employs some unique, unusual, or distinctive modus operandi in an uncharged crime that is relevant to proving his identity as the perpetrator of the crime charged” (People v Mateo, 93 NY2d 327, 332 [1999]). “[E]vidence of a similar crime may be admissible to identify the defendant where ‘the similarities [are] unusual enough to compel the inference that the defendant committed both’ ” (People v Agina, 18 NY3d at 603, quoting People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241, 251 [1982]).

2013Of course, the identity exception to the Molineux rule “is used in limited circumstances, when the defendant employs some unique, unusual, or distinctive modus operandi in an uncharged crime that is relevant to proving his identity as the perpetrator of the crime charged” (People v Mateo, 93 NY2d 327, 332 [1999]). “[E]vidence of a similar crime may be admissible to identify the defendant where ‘the similarities [are] unusual enough to compel the inference that the defendant committed both’ ” (People v Agina, 18 NY3d at 603, quoting People v Beam, 57 NY2d 241, 251 [1982]).

2014“Whether evidence of prior crimes may be admitted under the Molineux rule is a question of law, not discretion” (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]; see People v McKinney, 24 NY2d 180 , 185 n 4 [1969]).

2014“Whether evidence of prior crimes may be admitted under the Molineux rule is a question of law, not discretion” (People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]; see People v McKinney, 24 NY2d 180 , 185 n 4 [1969]).

1994The defendant’s Molineux claim is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jordan, 193 AD2d 890 ; People v Washington, 169 AD2d 795 ; People v Quinones, 166 AD2d 330 ) and, in any event, is without merit because the now-challenged testimony was relevant to motive and intent (see, People v Kaufman, 156 AD2d 718, 719 ; People v Stephens, 119 AD2d 777, 778 ), and to complete the narrative of events leading up to the murder (see, People v Vails, 43 NY2d 364, 368 ; People v McDowell, 191 AD2d 515 ; People v DeLeon, 177 AD2d 641, 642 ).

1994The defendant’s Molineux claim is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jordan, 193 AD2d 890 ; People v Washington, 169 AD2d 795 ; People v Quinones, 166 AD2d 330 ) and, in any event, is without merit because the now-challenged testimony was relevant to motive and intent (see, People v Kaufman, 156 AD2d 718, 719 ; People v Stephens, 119 AD2d 777, 778 ), and to complete the narrative of events leading up to the murder (see, People v Vails, 43 NY2d 364, 368 ; People v McDowell, 191 AD2d 515 ; People v DeLeon, 177 AD2d 641, 642 ).