New York Criminal Attorney Blog
In a recent case before a New York appellate court, the defendant successfully appealed his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon. The defendant originally faced charges after an officer found a .45 caliber gun in his vehicle’s center console. His case went to trial, and a jury found him guilty. On appeal, however, the defendant successfully argued that the trial court unreasonably allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of his past crimes during the proceedings. The higher court, agreeing with the defendant, vacated the trial court’s order. Generally, evidence of prior bad acts may not be used against a defendant with very limited exceptions.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, an officer pulled the defendant over one morning because of an illegal U-turn. The officer approached the defendant’s car and immediately smelled marijuana. He took the defendant and his passenger to the station, later finding a .45 caliber gun in the defendant’s console along with three handguns in the back.
The defendant’s case went to trial, and during the trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of two prior incidents on the defendant’s record – a 2006 uncharged crime and a 2007 misdemeanor for weapon possession. The jury ultimately returned a guilty verdict.
The Decision
On appeal, the defendant took issue with the trial court’s decision to allow the prosecution to introduce evidence of his two prior crimes. During the trial, the prosecution argued that the prior acts helped show that the defendant knew the guns were in his car – i.e., that they were not there by accident. The trial court had allowed the prosecution to discuss these prior crimes throughout the criminal proceedings.
The defendant’s main argument on appeal was that the prior acts did not actually have anything to do with the offense at issue. In general, argued the defendant, evidence of prior bad acts are inadmissible in a criminal trial. There is an exception to this rule if the prior acts tend to show that the defendant had an intent to commit the crime at issue in his or her current trial. Generally, the exception to the general rule would permit evidence of prior crimes or other bad acts to show intent, motive, absence of a mistake, identity or that the current case was part of a common plan or scheme.
The court ultimately agreed with the defendant, deciding that the two prior offenses had no bearing on whether the defendant had the intent required for criminal possession of a weapon over ten years later. The prior acts’ evidence was not at all relevant to whether the defendant knew that the guns in question were in his truck, and the trial court should not have allowed the prosecution to inform the jury of these prior offenses.
Accordingly, the higher court reversed the lower court’s judgment, remanding the case for an entirely new trial.
Are You Looking for High Quality Criminal Defense Representation in New York?
If you or a loved one are facing gun charges in New York and haven’t yet found representation, give us a call at Tilem & Associates. We are committed to providing aggressive representation for our clients, because we understand just how much is on the line when your freedom is at stake. For a free and confidential consultation with a defense attorney, give us a call today at 877-377-8666. You can also fill out our online form to tell us more about your case.