The 2016-2017 Term of the Court of Appeals and the four Appellate Division departments produced a number of significant evidence decisions. Most of these decisions have previously been discussed by this columnist1 and other New York Law Journal columnists.2 This column and the next one will focus on a handful of evidence decisions which are also deserving of comment due to their practical impact upon the trial of civil and criminal cases and which might otherwise be overlooked by the bench and bar due to their less-heralded nature.
‘Molineux’
New York’s Molineux rule, applicable in both civil and criminal actions, provides that when evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts committed by a person is offered for the purpose of raising an inference that the person is likely to have committed the crime charged or the act in issue, the evidence is inadmissible. People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 291-93 (1901). However, where the evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts is offered for a non-conformity or non-propensity purpose which is relevant in the action, the evidence may be admissible. Id. at 293-94.3 Which side of the line drawn by Molineux offered evidence fell on was in issue in two interesting cases.
