People v. Higgins

33 Citing cases

  1. People v. Pham

    118 A.D.3d 1159 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 31 times
    Holding “[d]etails of the abuse, even including the perpetrator's identity, may be relevant to diagnosis and treatment when the assault occurs within a domestic violence relationship because the medical provider must consider the victim's safety when creating a discharge plan and gauging the patient's psychological needs”

    County Court did not err in allowing evidence of the history of domestic violence between defendant and the victim. While not admissible to demonstrate bad character generally or a propensity to commit the charged crimes, “evidence of uncharged crimes or bad acts may be admitted if it establishes an element of the crime charged, such as the element of forcible compulsion in a rape case, is inextricably interwoven with the charged crime [ ], provide[s] necessary background[,] ... complete[s] a witness's narrative, or falls within the five general Molineux exceptions” ( People v. Higgins, 12 A.D.3d 775, 777–778, 784 N.Y.S.2d 232 [2004],lv. denied4 N.Y.3d 764, 792 N.Y.S.2d 7, 825 N.E.2d 139 [2005] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v. Cook, 93 N.Y.2d 840, 841, 688 N.Y.S.2d 89, 710 N.E.2d 654 [1999] ).

  2. People v. Sorrell

    108 A.D.3d 787 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 34 times

    Evidence that adult pornography was downloaded on defendant's computer was admissible to corroborate the child's testimony that defendant compelled her to watch and select activities from such videos prior to engaging in sexual conduct, and was reflective of defendant's intent and motive ( see People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263 [2009];People v. Shofkom, 63 A.D.3d 1286, 1287–1288, 880 N.Y.S.2d 758 [2009],lv. denied13 N.Y.3d 799, 887 N.Y.S.2d 549, 916 N.E.2d 444 [2009],appeal dismissed13 N.Y.3d 933, 895 N.Y.S.2d 310, 922 N.E.2d 898 [2010];People v. Higgins, 12 A.D.3d 775, 778, 784 N.Y.S.2d 232 [2004],lv. denied4 N.Y.3d 764, 792 N.Y.S.2d 7, 825 N.E.2d 139 [2005] ).

  3. Bennett v. Mosicicki

    No. 09-CV-06608T (W.D.N.Y. Jun. 14, 2011)

    T.T. 54-72, 99-100. The evidence of domestic violence perpetrated against the victim's mother (and witnessed by F.B.) was therefore relevant to establishing the element of forcible compulsion under New York law, and for explaining why F.B. had delayed disclosing the sexual assaults perpetrated against her. See People v. Greene, 306 A.D.2d 639, 642 (2003) ("Prior and concurrent threats and violence to the victim's family . . . are admissible as proof of the element of forcible compulsion and to explain the victim's failure to reveal the ongoing sexual assaults."); see also People v. Higgins, 12 A.D.3d 775, 777-78 (2004). In counts eleven and thirteen of the indictment, Petitioner was charged with Rape in the First Degree (with respect to F.B.) where "forcible compulsion" is an element of the crime.

  4. People v. Higgins

    4 N.Y.3d 764 (N.Y. 2005)

    January 7, 2005. Appeal from the 3d Dept: 12 AD3d 775 (Greene). Application in criminal case for leave to appeal denied.

  5. People v. Saunders

    176 A.D.3d 1384 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 20 times

    tted where they fall within the recognized Molineux exceptions – motive, intent, absence of mistake, common plan or scheme and identity — or where such proof is inextricably interwoven with the charged crimes, provides necessary background or completes a witness's narrative" ( People v. Turner, 172 A.D.3d 1768, 1771–1772, 101 N.Y.S.3d 756 [2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lvs denied 34 N.Y.3d 930, 939, 109 N.Y.S.3d 732,133 N.E.3d 436 [Aug. 23, 2019] ; seePeople v. Frankline, 27 N.Y.3d 1113, 1115, 36 N.Y.S.3d 834, 57 N.E.3d 26 [2016] ; People v. Gannon, 174 A.D.3d 1054, 1058, 104 N.Y.S.3d 770 [2019] ). Here, the video of defendant's interview with police, and the corresponding transcript thereof wherein he admits to having previously possessed and used drugs with the victims, was information relevant and material to the issues of both motive and intent and provided necessary background information regarding the nature of defendant's relationship with the victims (seePeople v. Higgins, 12 A.D.3d 775, 778, 784 N.Y.S.2d 232 [2004], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 764, 792 N.Y.S.2d 7, 825 N.E.2d 139 [2005] ). Moreover, defendant thereafter declined County Court's invitation to provide a limiting instruction to the jury regarding the references to this uncharged criminal conduct.

  6. People v. Elmore

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 6300 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

    nt's contention that County Court abused its discretion in its Molineux ruling. It is well established that "[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]). Here, the victim of the charged crimes was defendant's family member, and testimony from the victim upon redirect examination about uncharged acts of defendant's prior abuse of other family members was properly admitted in evidence for the purposes of completing the narrative and providing relevant background information of the family dynamic, and was relevant to the element of forcible compulsion with respect to the charges of criminal sexual act in the first degree (see People v Washington, 122 AD3d 1406, 1408 [4th Dept 2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1173 [2015]; People v Ennis, 107 AD3d 1617, 1618 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1040 [2013], reconsideration denied 23 NY3d 1036 [2014]; People v Higgins, 12 AD3d 775, 777-778 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 764 [2005]). Contrary to defendant's contention, the probative value of that evidence was not outweighed by its potential for prejudice (see generally People v Alvino, 71 NY2d 233, 242 [1987]) and, moreover, the court's prompt limiting instructions ameliorated any prejudice (see People v Larkins, 153 AD3d 1584, 1587 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1061 [2017]).

  7. People v. Elmore

    175 A.D.3d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)   Cited 31 times

    nt to a material issue in the case other than defendant's criminal propensity" ( People v. Dorm, 12 N.Y.3d 16, 19, 874 N.Y.S.2d 866, 903 N.E.2d 263 [2009] ). Here, the victim of the charged crimes was defendant's family member, and testimony from the victim upon redirect examination about uncharged acts of defendant's prior abuse of other family members was properly admitted in evidence for the purposes of completing the narrative and providing relevant background information of the family dynamic, and was relevant to the element of forcible compulsion with respect to the charges of criminal sexual act in the first degree (seePeople v. Washington, 122 A.D.3d 1406, 1408, 997 N.Y.S.2d 194 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1173, 15 N.Y.S.3d 304, 36 N.E.3d 107 [2015] ; People v. Ennis, 107 A.D.3d 1617, 1618, 969 N.Y.S.2d 284 [4th Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 1040, 981 N.Y.S.2d 374, 4 N.E.3d 386 [2013], reconsideration denied 23 N.Y.3d 1036, 993 N.Y.S.2d 250, 17 N.E.3d 505 [2014] ; People v. Higgins, 12 A.D.3d 775, 777–778, 784 N.Y.S.2d 232 [3d Dept. 2004], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 764, 792 N.Y.S.2d 7, 825 N.E.2d 139 [2005] ). Contrary to defendant's contention, the probative value of that evidence was not outweighed by its potential for prejudice (see generallyPeople v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 242, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808 [1987] ) and, moreover, the court's prompt limiting instructions ameliorated any prejudice (seePeople v. Larkins, 153 A.D.3d 1584, 1587, 62 N.Y.S.3d 648 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 1061, 71 N.Y.S.3d 11, 94 N.E.3d 493 [2017] ).

  8. People v. Gooley

    156 A.D.3d 1231 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 12 times

    le v. Bowman, 139 A.D.3d 1251, 1254, 32 N.Y.S.3d 362 [2016], lv denied 28 N.Y.3d 927, 40 N.Y.S.3d 355, 63 N.E.3d 75 [2016] ; People v. Tirado, 109 A.D.3d at 689, 970 N.Y.S.2d 342 ). We also reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in allowing an expert witness to testify regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. It is well-accepted that such testimony may be admitted "to explain a victim's behavior that jurors might otherwise misunderstand or perceive as unusual, such as a child's failure to promptly report abuse" ( People v. Pomales, 49 A.D.3d 962, 964, 853 N.Y.S.2d 407 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 938, 862 N.Y.S.2d 345, 892 N.E.2d 411 [2008] ; seePeople v. Gregory, 78 A.D.3d 1246, 1247, 910 N.Y.S.2d 295 [2010], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 831, 921 N.Y.S.2d 195, 946 N.E.2d 183 [2011] ; People v. Maggio, 70 A.D.3d 1258, 1260–1261, 896 N.Y.S.2d 220 [2010], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 889, 903 N.Y.S.2d 778, 929 N.E.2d 1013 [2010] ; People v. Higgins, 12 A.D.3d 775, 778, 784 N.Y.S.2d 232 [2004], lv denied 4 N.Y.3d 764, 792 N.Y.S.2d 7, 825 N.E.2d 139 [2005] ). Here, the expert testified that she had never met either child or defendant, nor had she reviewed any information specifically pertaining to this case.

  9. People v. Serrano-Gonzalez

    146 A.D.3d 1013 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 9 times

    Moreover, County Court instructed the jury that defendant's HIV status could not be considered as propensity or disposition evidence in relationship to the charged crimes. Considering the foregoing, County Court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the victim's testimony on the issue (see People v. Pham., 118 A.D.3d 1159, 1161, 987 N.Y.S.2d 687 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1087, 1 N.Y.S.3d 14, 25 N.E.3d 351 [2014] ; People v. Higgins, 12 A.D.3d 775, 778, 784 N.Y.S.2d 232 [2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 764, 792 N.Y.S.2d 7, 825 N.E.2d 139 [2005] ). Further, having failed to raise to County Court the contention that he had a constitutional privacy interest that rendered such evidence inadmissible, defendant did not preserve that contention for our review (see People v. Nelson, 27 N.Y.3d 361, 367–368, 33 N.Y.S.3d 814, 53 N.E.3d 691 [2016], cert. denied ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 175, 196 L.Ed.2d 144 [Oct. 3, 2016] ).

  10. People v. Brown

    114 A.D.3d 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 17 times

    More to the point, the record before us fails to establish that the uncharged crime/prior bad act at issue, which implicated defendant engaging in sexual contact with another underage victim, falls within any of the recognized Molineux exceptions ( see People v. Buskey, 45 A.D.3d 1170, 1173–1174, 846 N.Y.S.2d 701 [2007];compare People v. Sorrell, 108 A.D.3d 787, 791–792, 969 N.Y.S.2d 198 [2013];People v. Jones, 101 A.D.3d 1482, 1483, 956 N.Y.S.2d 703 [2012],lv. denied21 N.Y.3d 1017, 971 N.Y.S.2d 499, 994 N.E.2d 395 [2013];People v. Justice, 99 A.D.3d 1213, 1215, 951 N.Y.S.2d 802 [2012],lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1012, 960 N.Y.S.2d 355, 984 N.E.2d 330 [2013];People v. Brown, 39 A.D.3d 886, 887–888, 835 N.Y.S.2d 451 [2007],lv. denied9 N.Y.3d 873, 842 N.Y.S.2d 785, 874 N.E.2d 752 [2007];People v. Higgins, 12 A.D.3d 775, 778, 784 N.Y.S.2d 232 [2004],lv. denied4 N.Y.3d 764, 792 N.Y.S.2d 7, 825 N.E.2d 139 [2005] ), and we are persuaded that whatever probative value such proof may possess “is far outweighed by its obvious prejudice to defendant” ( People v. Buskey, 45 A.D.3d at 1174, 846 N.Y.S.2d 701). Finally, although the jury's verdict is not against the weight of the evidence, we cannot say that the proof of defendant's guilt was overwhelming ( see People v. Arafet, 13 N.Y.3d at 467, 892 N.Y.S.2d 812, 920 N.E.2d 919;People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 [1975] ) and, therefore, we cannot deem the error in this regard to be harmless ( see People v. Buskey, 45 A.D.3d at 1174, 846 N.Y.S.2d 701;compare People v. Newkirk, 75 A.D.3d 853, 856, 906 N.Y.S.2d 133 [2010],lv.