In People v. Mendez (2d Dept. 2/9/2010), the Second Department unanimously held that a trial court must provide "proper limiting instructions" where "[e]vidence of uncharged crimes [was] properly . . . admitted 'as relevant background material'" pursuant to an exception of the Molineux rule (quoting People v. Laverpool (2d Dept., 6/10/2008)). According to Laverpool, such relevant background material satisfies the Molineux exception of motive and intent where the evidence shows: (1) an understanding of the defendant's relationship with the complaint, (2) an explanation of the issuance of an order of protection, and (3) evidence of the defendant's motive and intent in the commission of the charged crime.
While the Appellate Division did not refer to the specific jury charges in its opinion, the court did conclude that there was a "significant probability that the erroneous instructions contributed to the defendant's conviction." Thus, the court reversed the court below and remanded the case for a new trial. (JTR/LC)
Comments