BILL NUMBER: S9445

SPONSOR: PALUMBO
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to admitting
evidence of similar crimes in sexual offense cases

 
PURPOSE:

Relates to admitting evidence of similar crimes in sexual offense cases.

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1. the criminal procedure law is amended by adding a new section
60.77 Rules of Evidence; crimes in sexual offense cases:

a. Under article 130 of penal law, the court may admit evidence of prior
acts.

b. The prosecutor must disclose such evidence to the defendant.

              

c. Does not limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any
other rule.

d. Defines sexual offense.

Section 2. Sets the effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

In light of recent Court of Appeals decisions, the rules of evidence
regarding the admissibility of prior bad acts, has been severely
restricted. In People v Harvey Weinstein, the Court dismissed a rape
case against this prominent Hollywood producer who was convicted of rape
and several sexual assaults of several actresses through coercion,
intimidation, forceable compulsion and threats of physical harm.

As a result of the Weinstein decision, tremendous confusion has resulted
regarding the rules for admission of prior bad acts into evidence. This
confusion is now among trial judges and legal scholars alike. As such,
this legislation will merely codify a necessary clarification of the
case law that existed in this State for more than 100 years. People v
Molineux was the seminal case outlining the elements necessary for such
evidence to be allowed at trial.  Specifically, the so called "Molineux
Rule" permitted relevant evidence that tended to prove the defendant's
motive, intent to commit the crime, the absence of mistake or accident,
a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes
so related to each other that the proof of one tends to establish the
others or the identity of the person charged with the commission of the
crime on trial.

Accordingly, this bill will codify the Molineux Rule and require, upon
satisfaction that the prior act is being offered to establish one of the
above criteria, the trial court must then balance the probative value of
such evidence against the prejudicial effect to the defendant as it may
not be used to simply prove that the defendant has a propensity to
commit crime or similar crimes to the current charges. This ensures that
the defendant's rights are maintained and that both parties have an
opportunity to be heard on the merits prior to the admission into
evidence.

It is important to recognize that understanding the full scope of past
behaviors could be highly relevant in a sexual assault case, particular-
ly if the victim and assailant were previously known to each other. The
Court's interpretation in the Weinstein case limits the proof to
isolated incidents creating a skewed picture by precluding jurors from
hearing evidence that would demonstrate the defendant's conduct was part
of a repeated pattern of abuse.

As was stated by Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez in a recent
article: many jurisdictions across the country, and in the federal
system, the laws allow more comprehensive use of such evidence in sex
crime prosecutions. The federal rule permits courts to admit evidence of
any prior sexual assaults by the defendant, helping jurors receive a
fuller account of their behavior in cases where physical evidence may be
scarce, and credibility is paramount. It is time for New York to align
with the modern and just approach taken by other states and the federal
system.

Perpetrators of rape are often serial criminals. Approximately one-third
(35.7%) of unique defendants in a sample of offender identified by DNA
through sexual assault kits had two or more sexual assaults lined via
DNA. Many survivors feel alone, and fear not being believed then they
report. As a result, only 310 out of every 1/000 sexual assaults are
reported to police. That means more than 2 out of 3 go unreported. When
the law prevents judges from considering the defendant's past behavior,
survivors often feel that their experiences are being dismissed margi-
nalized. This change will help ensure that sexual predators like Harvey
Weinstein do not escape accountability for their behavior and that sexu-
al assault survivors receive the justice they desperately deserve.

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediately