A Good Time to Aggressively Litigate Molineux Applications

In 2017, the Court of Appeals in People v Leonard (29 NY3d 1, [2017]), reversed a conviction of sexual abuse on a holding that the trial court erred in permitting the People to introduce testimony from the victim about a prior incident in which the defendant allegedly sexually assaulted her in a similar manner, because the evidence was not permissible for the People's proffered Molineux purposes, since intent, sexual gratification, can be inferred from the act and, to the extent it was probative for a limited purpose, the prejudicial nature of that evidence far outweighed any probative value. Bill Easton and I represented Mr. Leonard. More recently, in People v Weinstein (42 NY3d 439 [2024), the Court of Appeal reversed convictions for criminal sex act and rape on a finding that it was prejudicial error to admit testimony of other women regarding alleged sexual assaults of the similar to those charged. Last Friday, in People v Alexander (2025 NY Slip Op 00539, 2025 WL 352118 [4th Dept Jan. 31, 2025]), the Fourth Department relied on Weinstein and Leonard in reversing a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon on aa holding that it was prejudicial error to admit evidence of defendant’s “systematic abuse” of his wife to show defendant’s motive, intent, absence of mistake, and identity in this case And in People v Henderson (2025 NY Slip Op 005372025 WL 351772 [4th Dept Jan. 31, 2025]), the Fourth Department split 3-2 as to whether the admission of Molineux evidence was error. In these cases, appellate courts gave serious consideration to arugments that both prongs of the Molineux test were not satisfied. Thus, we should be citing these cases in aggressively litigating Molineux applications.