New York Criminal Attorney Blog
When you’re accused of a sex crime, one of the most damaging developments in your case can be the admission of past allegations—especially if they involve similar conduct. In People v. Sin, the New York Court of Appeals upheld a conviction for first-degree rape and sexual abuse, ruling that testimony from two of the defendant’s other sisters-in-law about previous attempted sexual assaults was properly admitted at trial. The court found this evidence relevant to the central issue in the case: whether the defendant had criminal intent during the alleged assault.
This ruling is a significant reminder that your prior conduct—even if it never led to criminal charges—can be introduced against you if the court determines it’s legally relevant. Understanding how and why this kind of evidence may be used is essential for anyone facing similar allegations.
The Allegations Against the Defendant
The charges in Sin stemmed from a violent sexual assault reported by the defendant’s sister-in-law. The victim testified that while she and her young child were sleeping in her apartment, the defendant entered under the pretense of delivering mail. After propositioning her and being rejected, the defendant allegedly physically restrained the victim, assaulted her, and raped her on the floor of her home, with her child present.
What made this case even more complex was what happened before and during trial. The prosecution sought to introduce testimony from two of the victim’s sisters—also sisters-in-law of the defendant—about similar past incidents. Both women claimed that the defendant had previously attempted to assault them under comparable circumstances. The defense objected, arguing that the evidence was highly prejudicial and would unfairly bias the jury.
The Law: Understanding the Molineux Rule
New York’s longstanding rule, established in People v. Molineux (1901), generally prohibits prosecutors from introducing evidence of prior bad acts or uncharged crimes simply to show that a defendant has a criminal disposition or is likely to commit the offense charged. This is to prevent the jury from convicting someone because of who they are, rather than what they allegedly did in a specific case.
However, there are exceptions. Courts can allow evidence of past misconduct if it directly relates to a material issue in the case other than the defendant’s propensity. Examples include proving motive, intent, absence of mistake, identity, or a common plan or scheme. Judges must also weigh whether the relevance of the evidence outweighs the risk of unfair prejudice. This two-step process is known as the Molineux analysis.
How the Court Applied the Molineux Rule in This Case
In People v. Sin, the defendant’s entire trial strategy hinged on consent. He claimed that the encounter was a consensual sexual act between adults and that the victim only cried rape to cover up an affair. By admitting that sexual intercourse occurred but denying criminal intent, the defendant made his state of mind the central issue.
That put the Molineux exception into play. The prosecution argued—and the trial court agreed—that the prior attempted assaults were highly relevant to show the defendant’s intent during the charged rape. The jury was not asked to assume that the defendant had a violent disposition. Instead, they were instructed that the prior incidents could only be considered to evaluate whether the current act was truly accidental or mistaken, or part of a broader pattern of behavior.
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the earlier assaults “had obvious relevance as tending to refute defendant’s claim of an innocent state of mind.” Importantly, the court emphasized that without a showing of force or lack of consent, sexual intercourse is not inherently criminal. In cases like this, where the primary dispute is over consent, evidence that directly contradicts the defendant’s narrative may be admissible, even if it involves disturbing past behavior.
Why This Matters for Defendants
The Sin decision reinforces the importance of understanding how your past—especially alleged conduct involving the same victim or closely related individuals—can come back to impact your case. Even when no charges were filed, prior accusations may be used to rebut your defense, particularly when you argue that the alleged victim consented.
If your defense is based on consent or accident, and if any prior incidents even remotely resemble the facts at issue, the prosecution may seek to introduce them under Molineux. Once admitted, the jury will hear them. And while judges will instruct jurors not to use that evidence to assume you acted in accordance with a “bad character,” jurors may still be influenced by the emotional impact of the testimony.
Additionally, this case shows how critical it is for the defense to anticipate and challenge such evidence aggressively. That means filing pretrial motions, requesting detailed jury instructions, and presenting your own evidence—if available—that contradicts or contextualizes the prosecution’s version of events.
Ensure You Have the Best Defense Possible
At Tilem & Associates, we know how dangerous Molineux evidence can be to your defense—and how to fight its admission. If you’re facing rape, sexual abuse, or any other sexual offense charge, your past could become a courtroom weapon against you. Our attorneys are experienced in litigating pretrial motions, challenging improperly admitted testimony, and ensuring that every trial is decided on the facts—not on fear or prejudice.
Before your case moves forward, make sure your rights are protected and your defense is prepared. Contact Tilem & Associates at 877-377-8666 or through our secure online form for a confidential consultation. In a system where past accusations can shape your future, your defense must begin now.