13 N.Y.3d 460 (2009)

r
r

Evidence of uncharged crimes is inadmissible to show a defendant’s bad character or propensity, but may be admissible if relevant to another issue and its probative value outweighs the potential prejudice, though no “specialized crime” exception exists.

r
r

Summary

r

Nasin Arafet was convicted of stealing a trailer containing valuable merchandise. At trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of four other criminal incidents. Arafet appealed, arguing the admission of this evidence violated People v. Molineux. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence related to three incidents was admissible, but the fourth was not, though its admission constituted harmless error. The key evidence against Arafet included cell phone records placing him near the scene, a toll ticket with his fingerprint, and calls to individuals involved in fencing stolen goods and prior trailer thefts.

r
r

Facts

r

A trailer disappeared from a parking lot in Rotterdam, NY on July 26, 2003. The trailer was found abandoned in New Jersey two days later. Cell phone records showed Arafet traveled from New Jersey to the vicinity of the theft on the morning it occurred, and then traveled back south. Thruway records indicated a tractor-trailer entered the Thruway near the theft location and exited near Arafet’s home, with Arafet’s fingerprint on the toll ticket. Arafet made calls to Jose Gotay, who operated truck bays potentially used for fencing, and Nelson Quintanilla, who had been an accomplice in a prior theft.

r
r

Procedural History

r

Arafet was convicted of grand larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in County Court. The Appellate Division affirmed. An Appellate Division Justice granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.

r
r

Issue(s)

r

r
1. Whether the evidence of Jose Gotay’s fencing operation was admissible under Molineux.

r

2. Whether the evidence of the 1996 crime involving Arafet and Nelson Quintanilla was admissible under Molineux.

r

3. Whether the evidence of the April 2000 incident where Arafet stole a trailer was admissible under Molineux.

r

4. Whether the admission of evidence regarding the April 2000 crime, if erroneous, constituted harmless error.

r

r
r

Holding

r

r
1. No, because evidence of Gotay’s fencing operation was not offered to show Arafet’s criminal propensity.

r

2. Yes, because evidence of the 1996 crime showed a distinctive repetitive pattern relevant to identity.

r

3. No, because the April 2000 incident served only to show Arafet’s propensity to commit trailer theft, and no “specialized crime” exception exists.

r

4. Yes, because the proof of Arafet’s guilt, without reference to the erroneously admitted evidence, was overwhelming, and there was no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted him without it.

r

r
r

Court’s Reasoning

r

The Court applied the Molineux rule, which prohibits the use of uncharged crimes to show bad character or criminal propensity. Evidence is admissible if relevant for another purpose, such as intent, motive, knowledge, common scheme/plan, or identity, provided the probative value outweighs prejudice. The Court reasoned evidence of Gotay’s fencing operation was not Molineux evidence, as it showed where stolen goods could be disposed of, supporting the inference Arafet needed a fence. The 1996 crime with Quintanilla was admissible to show a