People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233 (1988)
r
r
Evidence of prior uncharged crimes is admissible to prove intent when intent is not readily inferable from the act itself and the prior act is relevant to that issue, provided its probative value outweighs the potential for prejudice.
r
r
Summary
r
The New York Court of Appeals addressed the admissibility of evidence of prior crimes to establish intent in cases where guilty knowledge is central to the offense. In People v. Alvino, the defendant was charged with issuing a false certificate and bribe receiving. The prosecution introduced evidence of 15 similar crimes to demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge and agreement to issue false licenses for money. In People v. Hernandez, the defendant faced drug charges, and prior drug sales were introduced on rebuttal to challenge his denial of intent to sell. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence was properly received in both cases, affirming Alvino’s conviction and reinstating Hernandez’s, emphasizing that such evidence is admissible when it directly addresses the defendant’s mental state and the probative value outweighs potential prejudice.
r
r
Facts
r
In Alvino: Defendant, a DMV cashier, was accused of issuing a false amended driver’s license in exchange for $100. A witness testified to 15 prior similar transactions with the defendant. The defendant claimed he never took the money.
r
In Hernandez: Defendant was arrested with 21 envelopes of cocaine. He admitted possession but claimed he was an addict and intended the drugs for personal use, denying ever selling drugs.
r
r
Procedural History
r
Alvino: The trial court admitted the evidence of prior transactions, and the jury convicted Alvino. The Appellate Division affirmed.
r
Hernandez: The trial court admitted rebuttal evidence of prior drug sales to impeach credibility, and Hernandez was convicted. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, reversing convictions for criminal sale and possession with intent to sell. The People appealed.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether evidence of prior uncharged crimes is admissible to prove intent when the crime charged requires proof of a specific mental state.
r
2. Whether, if admissible, evidence of prior uncharged crimes was properly received on rebuttal in People v. Hernandez.
r
r
Holding
r
1. Yes, because evidence of prior uncharged crimes can be admissible to establish intent when the act itself doesn’t clearly demonstrate the defendant’s state of mind, and the probative value of the evidence outweighs potential prejudice.
r
2. Yes, because the trial court could vary the order of proof and properly exercised its discretion to admit the evidence on rebuttal after the defendant testified.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court reasoned that evidence of prior uncharged crimes is generally inadmissible if its only purpose is to show bad character or propensity towards crime. However, such evidence is admissible if it helps establish an element of the crime under consideration or falls under a recognized exception to the general rule, as stated in People v. Molineux (168 N.Y. 264). These exceptions include showing intent, motive, knowledge, common scheme or plan, or identity. The Court emphasized that even when admissible, the probative value must outweigh the potential for prejudice to the defendant.
r
In Alvino, the Court found the evidence of prior transactions admissible to prove intent on both the false certificate and bribery charges. On the false certificate charge, the Court relied on People v. Marrin (205 N.Y. 275), stating that because the defendant claimed he didn’t have time to check each request, prior similar acts were relevant. On the bribery charge, the Court highlighted the need to prove a corrupt agreement, meaning the defendant knew he was issuing the license in exchange for a bribe. Prior acts helped establish this agreement.
r
In Hernandez, the Court noted that intent to sell wasn’t readily inferable from mere possession. When Hernandez claimed he never sold drugs and presented a