People v. Rhodes
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the CourtEgan Jr., J.
We affirm. Initially, we discern no error with respect to County Court’s Molineux ruling. At trial, the People sought to offer evidence of defendant’s “grooming” of the victims, which entailed conduct committed by defendant prior to the incidents charged in the underlying indictments. Defendant does not dispute that such evidence falls within at least one of the recognized Molineux exceptions (see People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]) — namely, to establish motive or provide necessary background information (see People v Burnell, 89 AD3d 1118, 1121 [2011]) — and, despite defendant’s…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- People v. BleakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. . MolineuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- People v. BurnellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. LaneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- People v. WemetteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- People v. IzzoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. BlondAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- People v. DiazAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2023
- People v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.