Legal Opinion
People v. Gousse
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 16, 2008PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, evidence of his prior conviction for robbery was properly admitted to establish his identity as the perpetrator of the instant crimes (see People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264 [1901]). Here, a unique modus operandi was sufficiently established, and the Supreme Court properly found that the similarity between the crimes was probative of the defendant’s identity (see People v Gousse, 43 AD3d 958 [2007]; People v Sanabria, 266 AD2d 41 [1999]; People v Delarosa, 218 AD2d 667 [1995]). Given the court’s limiting…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- People v. . MolineuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- People v. VentimigliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. SanabriaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
- People v. GousseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- People v. CabanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. LittlejohnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- People v. SaundersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. TaylorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- People v. LittlejohnAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013