97 N.Y.2d 32 (2001)

A defendant’s strategic choices during trial, such as statements made in the opening or cross-examination, can “open the door” to otherwise inadmissible evidence of prior crimes if those choices present a misleading picture that the prosecution needs to correct.

Summary

Rojas, an inmate, was charged with assaulting a jail guard. Before trial, the court precluded evidence of Rojas’s prior attempted assault on another inmate. During the trial, Rojas’s defense strategy focused on portraying himself as a victim of unjust treatment. He argued the harshness of his confinement in the “box” and implied he had done nothing to deserve such treatment. The prosecution then introduced evidence of the prior attempted assault to explain Rojas’s segregated status. The New York Court of Appeals held that Rojas had “opened the door” to this evidence through his defense strategy, making it admissible to correct the misleading impression he created, even though it would otherwise be inadmissible propensity evidence.

Facts

Enrique Rojas, while incarcerated, allegedly attempted to assault another inmate by stabbing him with a pencil. Jail personnel, deeming him dangerous, placed him in segregated custody, requiring him to wear paper clothing. Rojas refused to change his clothing, leading to a confrontation with guards. During this confrontation, Rojas punched a guard, dislocating his jaw. Rojas was indicted for the assault on the guard and the prior attempted assault on the inmate. The court severed the charges, and Rojas was tried first for assaulting the guard.

Procedural History

Prior to trial, Rojas moved to preclude evidence of the attempted assault on the inmate, arguing it was inadmissible propensity evidence. The trial court initially granted the motion, but allowed the prosecution to explain the paper clothing by stating Rojas’s status required it. At trial, Rojas’s defense focused on the harsh conditions of his confinement. The trial court then allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of the prior stabbing incident. Rojas was convicted of assault. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of Rojas’s prior alleged crime (attempted assault on another inmate) after initially precluding such evidence based on People v. Molineux, when Rojas presented a defense that portrayed him as a victim of unjust treatment.

Holding

Yes, because Rojas’s defense strategy created a misleading impression that needed to be corrected, he “opened the door” to the admission of the prior alleged crime. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged the general rule against admitting evidence of prior crimes to show propensity, as established in People v. Molineux. However, the Court emphasized that this rule is not absolute. It stated that the trial court initially made a ruling in favor of the defendant, precluding the admission of his prior alleged bad acts. However, the defense then “sought to utilize that ruling as a sword, to his advantage, by mischaracterizing the purpose of his solitary confinement.” The Court reasoned that Rojas’s defense strategy, particularly his opening statement and cross-examination, portrayed him as an undeserving victim of mistreatment, creating a false impression. The Court emphasized that “[h]aving chosen to make an opening statement, however, the defense adopted a single theme and repeatedly expressed it during its opening statement and cross-examination of Deputy Betsey.” The Court held that by opening the door to this issue, Rojas allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of the prior attempted assault to explain his segregated status and rebut his claim of unjust treatment. Allowing such evidence was permissible because it was necessary to correct the misleading impression and prevent the jury from acquitting Rojas based on the erroneous belief that his confinement was unjustified. The Court further stated that, “the defense cannot, on the one hand, claim that defendant had ‘done nothing wrong,’ and on the other hand, pervert the court’s preclusion order to restrain the prosecution from refuting that claim.” The Court further reasoned that there is no duty to make an opening statement, but having done so, the defense could not make the argument that the jailers were not properly performing their duty. Judge Smith dissented, arguing that defendant’s opening statement and cross-examination could not be construed as misleading the jury. Furthermore, the judge stated that the defendant did not open the door because an opening statement is not evidence.