People v. Mullin, 41 N.Y.2d 475 (1977)
The prosecution’s introduction of a defendant’s prior criminal record, when the defendant has not testified or put their character at issue, is highly prejudicial and grounds for a new trial.
Summary
Francis Mullin was convicted of robbery, assault, and criminal impersonation. The prosecution introduced evidence of Mullin’s prior criminal record through a detective’s testimony and a report referencing his “B number” from the Bureau of Criminal Identification. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the deliberate introduction of Mullin’s prior criminal record, without him testifying or putting his character at issue, was highly prejudicial and warranted a new trial. The Court emphasized the potential for such evidence to mislead the jury and distract them from the actual evidence of the charged crimes. The prosecutor also improperly referred to the prior record during summation.
Facts
Mullin and a codefendant, posing as detectives, gained entry to the victim’s home. Mullin handcuffed the victim, drew a gun, and announced he was not a cop. He then tortured the victim to reveal the combination to a safe. Failing to get the combination, Mullin stole $500 and a ring before fleeing. Detective Peano, investigating the crime, testified that the victim identified Mullin from photographs at the Bureau of Criminal Identification (BCI). Peano’s report, admitted into evidence, included Mullin’s “B number.” The prosecutor questioned Peano about the significance of the “B number,” over defense counsel’s objections, eliciting testimony that it came from a criminal file.
Procedural History
Mullin was convicted in the trial court of robbery, assault, and criminal impersonation. He appealed, arguing that the prosecution improperly introduced evidence of his prior criminal record. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Mullin then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution’s introduction of testimony concerning Mullin’s prior criminal record, when Mullin had not testified or put his character at issue, was so prejudicial as to require a new trial.
Holding
Yes, because the prosecution deliberately and forcefully thrust Mullin’s criminal history before the jury without justification, creating a high risk of prejudice that was not cured by the court’s instructions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that the prosecution is generally prohibited from introducing evidence of a defendant’s prior criminal record unless the defendant testifies or puts their character at issue. The Court cited People v. Zackowitz, stating that the law