People v. Mooney

6 Citing cases

  1. State v. Treadaway

    116 Ariz. 163 (Ariz. 1977)   Cited 59 times
    Reversing conviction based on lack of expert testimony to support admission of temporally remote evidence of continuing sexual propensity

    ex or non-sex crimes); State v. Wright, 203 N.W.2d 247 (Iowa 1972) (admission of prior lascivious conduct toward own daughter, for purpose of showing complete story or for corroboration, in trial for statutory rape of stepdaughter held reversible error because shows only criminal character); State v. Schlack, 253 Iowa 113, 111 N.W.2d 289 (1961) (admission, for purpose of showing motive — gratify lust for young girls — and identity — similar circumstances and license number — of other similar acts with other young girls, in trial for same offense, held reversible error to admit evidence of act occurring five years earlier although act occurring four months earlier held properly admitted; error to admit either for purpose of showing intent); Gorski v. State, 1 Md. App. 200, 228 A.2d 835 (1967) (admission, for purpose of showing propensity to commit crime charged, of prior indecent exposure with different victims continuing up to present time, in trial for sodomy, held reversible error); People v. Mooney, 363 Mich. 454, 109 N.W.2d 845 (1961) (admission for purpose of showing propensity, of prior "lewd, homosexual parties," in trial for gross indecency with 16-year-old, held prejudicial, reversible error); People v. Oaks, 24 Mich. App. 7, 179 N.W.2d 688 (1970) (admission, for purpose of showing intent or scheme, of prior indecent liberties with same victim, in trial for same offense with 8-year-old daughter, held reversible error because irrelevant to those issues); State v. Minns, 80 N.M. 269, 454 P.2d 355 (Ct.App. 1969) (admission, for purpose of showing lewd and lascivious disposition toward victim, of prior acts with same victim continuing from more than three years earlier until the present, in trial for similar acts, upheld); In re S., 70 Misc.2d 320, 333 N.Y.S.2d 466 (Fam.Ct. 1972) (admission of prior sodomy with different victims, in trial for sodomy, held reversible error for purpose of showing (1) common scheme/plan, or (2) intent, or (3) identification/peculiar modus operandi because method not so unusual and di

  2. State v. Whelan

    291 Minn. 83 (Minn. 1971)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion grounded in the court's discretionary authority

    "[Footnote 12] It has been suggested that such information may be elicited by defendant at the preliminary hearing. People v. Mooney, 363 Mich. 454, 457, 109 N.W.2d 845, 847." 272 Minn. 493, 139 N.W.2d 171.

  3. State v. Spreigl

    272 Minn. 488 (Minn. 1965)   Cited 663 times
    Holding that evidence of other offenses is admissible if offenses were part of the immediate episode for which defendant is being tried

    It has been suggested that such information may be elicited by defendant at the preliminary hearing. People v. Mooney, 363 Mich. 454, 457, 109 N.W.2d 845, 847. A well-considered article on the admissibility of testimony of prior victims points out:

  4. People v. Davis

    46 Mich. App. 80 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    The Michigan Supreme Court has held that the similar acts statute is not applicable in prosecutions for sodomy or gross indecency because in these cases the issue of motive, intent, mistake or the presence of a scheme or plan is not involved. People v. Dean, 253 Mich. 434 (1931); People v. Riddle, 322 Mich. 199 (1948); People v. Mooney, 363 Mich. 454 (1961). Our Court has handled the same issue, resolving it in the same manner.

  5. People v. McPherson

    38 Mich. App. 534 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 11 times

    Defendant also contends that the disputed testimony could not be used to show the reason for contacting the police. He cites People v. Mooney, 363 Mich. 454 (1961), as authority. However, Mooney was a prosecution for gross indecency and evidence of other acts of gross indecency is not admissible under the statute.

  6. People v. Parm

    166 N.W.2d 536 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 8 times

    The complainant herein had testified to the absence from his mailbox of his pay check mailed weekly thus prompting the investigation. The testimony of the officers was clearly admissible to show the plan or scheme of the defendant in rifling pay checks from the complainant's mailbox and is easily distinguishable from the factual situations of People v. Mooney (1961), 363 Mich. 454, and related cases cited by defendant in which there was no showing of scheme, plan, system, motive, or intent. Defendant claims error in the court's instruction that the defendant was "seen to take something" from complainant's mailbox when the proofs did not clearly show such facts.