NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A6203
SPONSOR: Durso TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to admitting
evidence of similar crimes in sexual offense cases
PURPOSE:
Relates to admitting evidence of similar crimes in sexual offense cases.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1. the criminal procedure law is amended by adding a new section
60.77 Rules of Evidence; crimes in sexual offense cases:
a. Under article 130 of penal law, the court may admit evidence of prior
acts.
b. The prosecutor must disclose such evidence to the defendant.
c. Does not limit the admission or consideration of evidence under any
other rule.
d. Defines sexual offense.
Section 2. Sets the effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
In light of recent Court of Appeals decisions, the rules of evidence
regarding the admissibility of prior bad acts, has been severely
restricted. In People v Harvey Weinstein, the Court dismissed a rape
case against this prominent Hollywood producer who was convicted of rape
and several sexual assaults of several actresses through coercion,
intimidation, forceable compulsion and threats of physical harm.
As a result of the Weinstein decision, tremendous confusion has resulted
regarding the rules for admission of prior bad acts into evidence. This
confusion is now among trial judges and legal scholars alike. As such,
this legislation will merely codify a necessary clarification of the
case law that existed in this State for more than 100 years. People v
Molineux was the seminal case outlining the elements necessary for such
evidence to be allowed at trial. Specifically, the so called "Molineux
Rule" permitted relevant evidence that tended to prove the defendant's
motive, intent to commit the crime, the absence of mistake or accident,
a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes
so related to each other that the proof of one tends to establish the
others or the identity of the person charged with the commission of the
crime on trial.
Accordingly, this bill will codify the Molineux Rule and require, upon
satisfaction that the prior act is being offered to establish one of the
above criteria, the trial court must then balance the probative value of
such evidence against the prejudicial effect to the defendant as it may
not be used to simply prove that the defendant has a propensity to
commit crime or similar crimes to the current charges. This ensures that
the defendant's rights are maintained and that both parties have an
opportunity to be heard on the merits prior to the admission into
evidence.
It is important to recognize that understanding the full scope of past
behaviors could be highly relevant in a sexual assault case, particular-
ly if the victim and assailant were previously known to each other. The
Court's interpretation in the Weinstein case limits the proof to
isolated incidents creating a skewed picture by precluding jurors from
hearing evidence that would demonstrate the defendant's conduct was part
of a repeated pattern of abuse.
As was stated by Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez in a recent
article: many jurisdictions across the country, and in the federal sex
crime the laws allow more comprehensive use of such evidence in sex
crime prosecutions. The federal rule permits courts to admit evidence of
any prior sexual assaults by the defendant, helping jurors receive a
fuller account of their behavior in cases where physical evidence may be
scarce, and credibility is paramount. It is time for New York to align
with the modern and just approach taken by other states and the federal
system.
Perpetrators of rape are often serial criminals. Approximately one-third
(35.7%) of unique defendants in a sample of offender identified by DNA
through sexual assault kits had two or more sexual assaults lined via
DNA. Many survivors feel alone, and fear not being believed then they
report. As a result, only 310 out of every 1/000 sexual assaults are
reported to police. That means more than 2 out of 3 go unreported. When
the law prevents judges from considering the defendant's past behavior,
survivors often feel that their experiences are being dismissed margi-
nalized. This change will help ensure that sexual predators like Harvey
Weinstein do not escape accountability for their behavior and that sexu-
al assault survivors receive the justice they desperately deserve.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
2024: A. 10436 Referred to Codes
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the sixtieth day after it shall have
become a law and shall apply to all cases pending on and after such
date.
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
6203
2025-2026 Regular Sessions
IN ASSEMBLY
February 27, 2025
___________
Introduced by M. of A. DURSO -- read once and referred to the Committee
on Codes
AN ACT to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to admitting
evidence of similar crimes in sexual offense cases
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-bly, do enact as follows:
1 Section 1. The criminal procedure law is amended by adding a new
2 section 60.77 to read as follows:
3 § 60.77 Rules of evidence; similar crimes in sexual offense cases.
4 1. In a criminal proceeding in which a defendant is accused of a sexu-
5 al offense, the court may admit evidence that the defendant committed
6 any other sexual offense in accordance with the federal rules of
7 evidence under 28 USC 413. The evidence may be considered on any matter
8 to which it is relevant to the defendant's motive, intent to commit the
9 crime, the absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or plan
10 embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other
11 that the proof of one tends to establish the others or the identity of
12 the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial. Upon a
13 determination that such evidence is relevant, the court must then find
14 that its probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect on the defend-
15 ant.
16 2. If the prosecutor intends to offer the evidence permitted under
17 this section, the prosecutor must disclose it to the defendant, includ-
18 ing witnesses' statements or a summary of the expected testimony. The
19 prosecutor must do so at least fifteen days before trial or at a later
20 time that the court allows for good cause.
21 3. This section does not limit the admission or consideration of
22 evidence under any other rule.
23 4. For purposes of this section "sexual offense" means any conduct or
24 attempted conduct committed in any jurisdiction which is prohibited by
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[] is old law to be omitted.
LBD02104-01-5
A. 6203 2
1 articles one hundred thirty and two hundred sixty-three and sections
2 230.34 and 230.34-a of the penal law.
3 § 2. This act shall take effect on the sixtieth day after it shall
4 have become a law and shall apply to all cases pending on and after such
5 date.
