purpose of raising presumption in New York

2024The Molineux Court also cited cases from Massachusetts and Pennsylvania that were to a similar effect (see 168 NY at 293 , citing Commonwealth v Jackson, 132 Mass 16, 19 [1882] [noting “the general rule that limits the trial to the immediate act for which the defendant is indicted”]; Shaffner v Commonwealth, 72 Pa 60, 65 [1872] [“It is a general rule that a distinct crime, unconnected with that laid in the indictment, cannot be given in evidence against a prisoner.

1914In order to prove his guilt it is not permitted to show his former character or to prove his guilt of other crimes, merely for the purpose of raising a presumption that he who would commit them would be more apt to commit the crime in *308 question.” The same subject is discussed at length in People v. Molineux ( 168 N. Y. 264, p. 292 , 16 N. Y.

2024In order to prove [their] guilt it is not permitted to show [their] former character or to prove [their] guilt of other crimes, merely for the purpose of raising a presumption that [they] who would commit them would be more apt to commit the crime in question’ ” ( 147 NY 78, 99 [1895], citing Sharp, 107 NY at 427 ).

1895In People v. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427 ; 12 St.

1980Co. v Victor, 393 US 7 [dismissing for want of substantial Federal question].) On the other hand, it can appropriately be argued that if there was no right to such process, no jurisdiction was ever obtained in this State; and further that since the recent decision was sudden and unanticipated, leave should be freely given pursuant to CPLR 3025 (subd [b]) to amend the pleading for the purpose of raising the defense.

1936(Altman v. Ozdoba, 237 N. Y. 218, 224 .) In the Molineux case Judge Werner, quoting from People v. Shea ( 147 N. Y. 78, 99 ), noted the rule that to prove a person’s guilt in respect to a particular charge “ it is not permitted to show his former character or to prove his guilt of other crimes, merely for the purpose of raising a presumption that he who would commit them would be more apt to commit the crime in question.” The learned jurist notes five exceptions to this general rule, only one of which would appear to be of common applicability in connection with civil wrongs.

1914Crim. 120), and more recently in People v. Dolan ( 186 N. Y. 4 ), in People v. Katz ( 209 N. Y. 311 , 30 N. Y.

1914Crim. 120), and more recently in People v. Dolan ( 186 N. Y. 4 ), in People v. Katz ( 209 N. Y. 311 , 30 N. Y.

1901Such evidence compels the defendant to meet charges of which the indictment gives him no information, confuses him in his defense, raises a variety of issues, and thus diverts the attention of the jury from the one immediately before it, and by showing the defendant to have been a knave on other occasions, creates a prejudice which may cause injustice to be done him." ( Commonwealth v. Jackson, 132 Mass. 16 .) The court of last resort in Pennsylvania thus states the rule: "It is the general rule that a distinct crime unconnected with that laid in the indictment cannot be given in evidence agai